Floor Statements

Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Madam President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:30 a.m., Thursday, December 6; that on Thursday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there be an hour of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3996, with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their

designees; that the 20 minutes immediately prior to the cloture vote be divided 10 minutes each for the leaders and the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes; that upon the use or yielding back of time, without further intervening action, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

Madam President, as a reminder, cloture was filed on the Harkin substitute to the farm bill. Therefore, if Members have amendments on the list of amendments in order to the bill, they should have germane first-degree amendments filed at the desk by 1 p.m. tomorrow. However, if amendments have already been filed, there is no need to refile at this time.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Thune for up to 15 minutes, the Senate then stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, more than 3,860 men and women of the American military have died in the war in Iraq. At last count, 21 were killed in November alone, and we are only halfway through. In the Senate, we are worried about getting out of work in time for Thanksgiving. In Iraq, they are worried about making it to Thanksgiving. As I speak today, more than 28,450 American soldiers have come home from Iraq with their lives changed forever by wounds, with missing arms and legs, with traumatic brain injuries that will forever alter how they cope with everyday life, with more cases of post- traumatic stress disorder than ever seen before, with life-altering blindness that cuts light from their lives forever.

As I speak, American taxpayers are footing a $455 billion bill for this war, with long-term estimates soaring well beyond $2 trillion. At the same time, children are going without health care. Students are being denied proper education. Our bridges are going without repair. Our borders are going without being completely secured, and we heard today of a case in which we still can't get our screening down pat to secure the possibility of someone bringing an explosive device into our airports. That is the legacy of the war in Iraq.

In the context of this set of grim statistics, while watching images on television of horrific explosions and bloody bodies, Americans were asked at the beginning of the year to accept a so-called surge of our troops into that country, an additional force that was supposed to provide the breathing room for the feuding political factions to achieve reconciliation. Those factions, of course, are Iraqi factions.

The Bush administration knew that peace could not be achieved solely militarily, that it had to be achieved politically. The administration unilaterally decided that more troops, more weapons, more military would make the political reconciliation happen. So we have to ask: What has been the result? Our men and women of the military have carried out their mission with unparalleled skill and bravery. They have sacrificed life and limb for their country. That is why we must ask these questions. Because they always respond, no questions asked. But it is our obligation to ask for them.

Through their excellent work, they have achieved results. But has it brought Iraq closer to a lasting peace? Has the political reconciliation--the very purpose of the additional troops--been achieved? Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

The front page of today's Washington Post paints a startling picture, a picture of the hard truth. Our generals--our generals on the ground-- tell us

that a political settlement remains elusive. In fact, their concern over this failure is growing. Let me quote from this morning's article in the Washington Post:

Senior military commanders here now portray the

intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the

key threat--

``As the key threat''--

facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda

terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.

Let me read that again.

Senior military commanders here--

U.S. military commanders--

now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated

government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq,

rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-

backed militias.

So here we are, 6 months into the surge, with more troops in Iraq right now--175,000--than ever before, and the main purpose of adding these troops remains just an aspiration, well out of our reach.

So I ask my colleagues who supported the surge of troops, is this the result you envisioned? A situation in which dozens of Americans are still dying every month despite a reduction in violence? A situation in which the sons and daughters of America are more than ever acting as the police force--as the police force--in a country that remains volatile and deadly? A situation in which the people we need most to achieve stability--the leaders of the various Iraqi political factions--look at a never-ending American military presence in their country and see little reason to reconcile?

Are we going to remain in the middle of an internal struggle for power, as General Petraeus reported in September? I was shocked when General Petraeus had as part of his testimony that the main conflict in Iraq was a struggle for power and resources within the different factions of Iraqi society. Are we sending our sons and daughters to create the space for the Iraqi politicians to fight over power and resources? That is what we sent our sons and daughters for? That is why we keep them there? Is that what we bargained for?

We cannot accept the status quo in Iraq. When our military commanders say that, in fact, the biggest challenge to us is the intransigence of Iraqi leaders to come together, more so than al-Qaida, more so than Sunni insurgents, more so than Iranian influences, that is one incredible statement.

Things must change, and to change it will take strong action. It requires a choice: Do we stay the course when we know that peace and political stability cannot be achieved looking down the barrel of a gun? Military presence does not achieve political reconciliation. Remember, former General Pace of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said once: Well, we need the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors. That is a powerful truism, but that does not come at the point of a rifle. That comes about through reconciliation. It comes through power sharing. It comes through revenue sharing. It comes through all of those things that, notwithstanding the arguments that we are creating the space for the Iraqi leadership to do, the Iraqi leadership has failed to do, and there is no movement in sight toward that goal. Or do we choose a course that impresses upon the political leaders in Iraq that they must reconcile and bring peace to their country swiftly?

We need to make them understand the true urgency of this task. We need to make them understand America will not always be there to play policeman. Instead of continuing to enable an endless and unchanging involvement in Iraq, we can set a timetable to begin bringing American troops back home. I believe that only then will we have the Iraqis understand that we are not there in an endless occupation, that they are going to have to make the hard choices for compromise, negotiations necessary to achieve a government of national unity on those issues of reconciliation, power sharing, revenue sharing, on the core issues that possibly can create the opportunity for a strong federal government in Iraq to survive. But as long as they believe we will stay there in an open-ended set of circumstances--shedding our blood and spending our national treasure--what is the urgency, the impetus for them to stop jostling over power, influence, and resources? Not only could we preserve the lives of countless American troops, not only could we save billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars, we also could make certain that the Iraqis know they will have to stand up to achieve the peace we all seek, the opportunities we would love to see for the Iraqi people, because until the Iraqi Government and military actually believe we will not be there forever, they will not actually take charge of their own country.

Transitioning our troops out of Iraq, that is what I choose. It is what the American people have continuously said they have chosen. It is what I urge my colleagues to choose. We have that opportunity coming tomorrow on the vote on bridge funding. That creates an opportunity to begin such a transition. I hope we will avail ourselves of that opportunity because if we have to read more and more of our generals saying that the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated Government is the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq rather than al-Qaida terrorists, Sunni insurgents, or Iranian-backed militias, we are in deep trouble--we are in deep trouble.

We have to have an opportunity to change the course, and pride-- pride--I hope is not the impediment for people recognizing that. We have lost too many lives already. We have spent an enormous amount of money. It is time for change. It is time for a change in course. It is time to make sure the Iraqis know they have to stand up for their own future, they have to make the hard decisions possible to have a government of national unity. That opportunity comes tomorrow for the Senate. I hope we will avail ourselves of it.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2371, introduced earlier today.

The clerk will report the bill by title.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

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, I personally thank you for your courtesy in taking over the Presiding Officer duties so that I may make these comments. I appreciate your courtesy.

Iraq

Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, I began a series of speeches on the price America is paying for the failed war in Iraq, and I wish to continue today. The number of American service men and women killed in action has risen to 3,855, and with every death of a husband or wife, a son or daughter, a mom or dad, the suffering of a family soars to that place where numbers do not matter, to that place where pain is beyond infinite.

I have spoken about what the war has cost us financially. Since the war began more than 4 long years ago, we have spent over $455 billion. Over the long run, it will cost almost $2 trillion. Again, those are not just numbers, those were cargo scanners that could have been installed at our ports, safer bridges that could have been built, lifesaving cancer research that could have been done, children who could have been educated, lives that could have been saved--a world of possibilities that passed by us all. I have tried to help us all imagine what we are giving up by failing to awaken ourselves from the living nightmare that is the war in Iraq.

Today, I wish to talk about the people who have given so much, people who will be paying for this war for the rest of their lives--our veterans and their families.

On Sunday, we celebrated Veterans Day. I wish to talk about how much we could do for those who have served with the amount of money we have used to send them into harm's way.

Mr. President, 28,451 troops have come back from Iraq with horrible wounds. Some wounds are physical. Some have had their legs or arms blown off by bombs. Some are blind from shrapnel in their eyes.

And some wounds are mental. Denying that war can wound a brain along with the rest of the body is denying so many veterans' nightmares, flashbacks, shocks or changes in personality so radical--so radical-- that loved ones can no longer recognize the person they once knew.

Today, Army researchers are releasing a study showing that the full psychological impact of the war tends to hit soldiers even harder 6 months after they have returned from the war. So the ranks of those suffering are about to grow by many thousands.

Beyond the human cost of these injuries, the financial costs to our society are tremendous. A report released by Physicians for Social Responsibility puts the cost of medical care and disability benefits for veterans returning from Iraq at over $660 billion. So in a very direct sense, the war has been more than twice as financially expensive as we might think just looking at the combat costs.

The human and financial costs don't end with just health care. Here is a shocking statistic, Mr. President: Veterans make up one in four homeless people in this country. That means almost 200,000 veterans don't have a home to go back to tonight. Experts say the rates of homelessness are spiraling up faster than they did after the war in Vietnam.

Mr. President, that is a moral outrage. These people put their lives on the line for our country, no questions asked. It is a shame our men and women in uniform would be sent to patrol the streets of Baghdad only to have to come back and sleep on the streets of their own hometowns.

That is why Democrats in Congress are working to give veterans the support they deserve. The Senate recently passed a bill that contains the largest increase in funding for our veterans in history. We are reinvigorating our Veterans Affairs Department with a record $87 billion, which is several billion dollars more than President Bush said he was willing to spend on our veterans, with $37 billion for veterans health care. Billions of dollars are headed to expand medical services and beef up the administrative side so vets spend less time waiting to get their benefits.

Now, compare this to the costs of combat. Let's compare the investment in the men and women who serve in the uniform of the United States to the costs of combat. We could pay for the entire Veterans Health Administration budget--the entire Veterans Health Administration budget, all $37 billion--with what we spend in less than 4 months of combat in Iraq. Take care of every veteran, in terms of the veterans health care system. We could pay for that entire budget, $37 billion, with what we spend in less than 4 months of combat in Iraq. And some say it is too much? Where are their priorities?

Just as important as making sure vets have excellent health care is making sure they have an opportunity to get an excellent education. I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill offered by Senator Webb that would be the biggest boost to veterans education since World War II. Preparing thousands of veterans to enter the civilian workforce with a first-rate education would cost about $5.4 billion next year--$5.4 billion--for, in essence, a new GI education bill. In other words, it would cost what it takes to fund combat in Iraq for roughly 2 weeks to make sure thousands of veterans can enter the civilian workforce when they come back.

Here is one of our challenges. Many of our vets come back and find the jobs they once had are no longer there. They find themselves, after serving their Nation, unemployed. The type of first-rate education we could give them would clearly create an opportunity to ensure they would have greater skills, greater employability, and that would take roughly 2 weeks of funding for the war in Iraq.

Democrats in Congress are also working to end the pandemic of homelessness. I joined with Senator Obama to support a bill called Homes for Heroes. The bill would establish permanent housing and services for low-income veterans and their families. It would make more rental assistance available to help providers of veteran housing and services, and focus more attention on vets who are homeless. Of course, the more soldiers who go off to war, the more necessary this bill becomes.

The portion of the bill that helps community and nonprofit organizations offer housing to low-income veterans would require about $225 million to fund. We grind up enough money to house thousands of veterans in 16 hours in Iraq--not even a day. The costs of combat compared to the opportunity to providing a year of expanded housing for homeless veterans would cost the same as 16 hours of the amount we spend in Iraq. Some say too much. Where are your values? What are your priorities? How is it that you choose?

Of course, the price we pay in dollars can never compare to the price our wounded warriors and their families pay in lost limbs, in haunted dreams, and in lives changed forever. That is a price not one more soldier should be asked to pay for a pointless war. In the meantime, we need to act fast to get returning vets the help they need. Veterans got their wounds following their

Government's orders. Those wounds can only heal if the Government reorders its priorities.

Democrats wanted to send the bill increasing funding for veterans to the President before Veterans Day, but President Bush is trying to use veterans funding as an excuse to veto other programs on which America depends. The President has also said funding a new GI bill for veterans' education is too expensive. Too expensive. Never have calls for fiscal responsibility been so morally irresponsible.

First and foremost, we can never forget the price tag our veterans have ultimately paid with their service, and the price tag for veterans services wouldn't be so high if this administration didn't recklessly send them into harm's way to begin with. The President seems to think we can't afford to spend on both veterans health and children's health. He seems to think we can't afford to treat the wounds our soldiers suffer and fund cancer research to save civilians from that brutal killer. He seems to think we can't afford to ensure the safety of our returning soldiers and make sure all Americans find safety in the workplace. But he did seem to think we could afford to chase Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan--as we should have--and then invade Iraq, even though both situations today are major challenges. He did seem to think we could fight a $2 trillion war in Iraq and give a massive tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, even though the economy hovers near recession and most American families are no better off now than they were at the beginning of this administration. He did seem to think he could sign every bill--every bill--the Republican-controlled Congress sent him, running up a debt to the tune of $3 trillion, borrowing money from foreign countries to pay for a war that makes no sense, ignoring pressing national priorities, underfunding care for veterans, leaving our ports vulnerable, leaving our educational systems underfunded, leaving the massive crisis in global climate change completely ignored, leaving children in this country without health care--because we have wanted to expand the number of uninsured children who have no health care coverage to those who would have health care coverage under our bill--leaving 47 million Americans with no health insurance whatsoever, and he thought that he could get away with all of it.

Well, Mr. President, now is the time for us to stand up and say: Sometimes you can't have it both ways. When it comes to children's health, when it comes to education and homeland security and veterans care, we had better be getting all the support we need.

On Sunday, our Nation devoted a day to those who devoted themselves to the Nation for military service. We took that day to celebrate how lucky we are--how lucky we are--and how unbelievably blessed we are as a nation to have such brave men and women rise again and again to offer their service when they hear the call. I hope we took that day to offer not just words but deeds of thanks.

A grateful nation not only goes to a Veterans Day observance or marches in a Memorial Day parade, as we should, but a grateful nation shows their gratitude by how we treat veterans in terms of getting them the health care they need, how we treat them in terms of taking care of their disabilities, and how we take care of the survivors of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. That is the true measure of a grateful nation.

We took that day to remember the duty we have to them because of the devotion they have shown to us. Veterans Day is about a fundamental principle. When soldiers are shipped off to war, if we can look them in the eye and tell them there is a good reason we are waving goodbye, we better be able to look them in the eye when they come back and tell them we mean it when we say: Welcome home.

With 171,000 troops still in Iraq, I hope America's message on Sunday was: We look forward to the soonest possible year when you will celebrate Veterans Day here with all of us. We welcome you back, and we honor you by how we take care of you in your health care, for those who have disabilities, and how we have taken care of the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. That will be the true measure of whether we are a grateful nation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I control the time allocated to Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who has indicated he will not be using that time.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the next Democratic speakers be the following: Senators Cardin, Boxer, Kennedy, Salazar and Sanders but not necessarily in that order.

It would.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next Attorney General for the United States. This has not been an easy decision for me to make.

I met Judge Mukasey before the judiciary hearings and liked him immensely on a personal level. We discussed the unprecedented and extremely harmful politicization that that has occurred within the Justice Department since the beginning of the

Bush administration. I was encouraged by the steps he said he would take to reverse it. We talked about the problems of leaking secret grand jury information, and I was impressed by his commitment to investigate any allegations of grand jury leaks and to terminate any responsible prosecutors.

In fact, after my meeting, I thought that I could comfortably vote to confirm Judge Mukasey as our next Attorney General. But, then came the judiciary hearings.

On the second day of the hearings, Judge Mukasey was specifically asked whether waterboarding was illegal. Now, before I get to Judge Mukasey's answer, let me describe what waterboarding is. And, let me make clear that my description contains no classified information-- nothing that Judge Mukasey would need special security clearance to know.

The term waterboarding can be used to describe several different interrogation techniques. In one, the victim is immersed in water. In another, water is forced into the victim's nose and mouth. In the third, water is poured onto material--like cellophane--that is placed over the victim's face so that the victim inhales and swallows the water.

Regardless of which technique is used, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: they struggle, they panic, they hold their breath. They inhale water into their lungs--they vomit and sometimes black out. This is not simulated drowning. It is simulated death. The drowning is real.

Despite this public knowledge of what constitutes waterboarding, Judge Mukasey refused to say whether waterboarding was illegal. According to the judge ``hypotheticals are different from real life.'' Therefore whether waterboarding was illegal would depend on ``the actual facts and circumstances''--things he did not know I have a hard time understanding what facts and circumstances could make the procedures I just described legal. I have a hard time understanding what facts and circumstances could make them somehow not cruel and inhumane. The only thing I don't have a hard time understanding is why Judge Mukasey's evasive and non-committal comments sound so familiar.

We have heard them before and all too often. Time and time again, other members of the Bush administration have played word games to justify their use of illegal or inappropriate interrogation techniques.

Judge Mukasey tried to backpedal by saying that he found waterboarding personally repugnant. Well, as many of us know, whether someone finds a law personally repugnant often has no impact on whether that person will enforce the law. Whether they find an action personally repugnant often has no impact on whether they will prosecute that action.

Judge Mukasey also said he would uphold any law that Congress passes in the future outlawing waterboarding. I am not sure how reassuring this statement is, since waterboarding is already illegal in the United States. Why should Congress have to pass a law prohibiting something that is already illegal?

Judge Mukasey should be well aware that waterboarding is illegal. On October 31, Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner--all experts in the area of interrogation and military justice--wrote a letter to Judge Mukasey stating, without a shadow of a doubt that ``waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear violation of U.S. law.'' And my colleagues should know this. They authored the 2005 prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment that the President signed into law. During the debate, they made it very clear that the so-called ``McCain amendment'' prohibits waterboarding or other extreme techniques that ``shock the conscience.''

I ask unanimous consent that a letter concerning waterboarding from Senators McCain, Warner and Graham and letters of opposition and concern from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the American Psychological Association be printed in the Record.

Knowing what we know about waterboarding, there is no way anyone can argue that it does not shock the conscience.

The McCain amendment is not the only provision of U.S. law prohibiting waterboarding. The 2006 Military Commissions Act clearly prohibits the practice. It enumerates the grave breaches of common article III of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. And, it explicitly prohibits acts that inflict ``serious and nontransitory mental harm.'' As my colleagues stated so clearly in their letter ``Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard.''

In fact, the U.S. has successfully prosecuted individuals who have engaged in waterboarding. After World War II, U.S. Military Commissions accused and successfully convicted Japanese soldiers for torturing American prisoners through the use of waterboarding. How can we stand here over 60 years later and confirm an individual to be our country's highest ranking law enforcement official if he will not enforce laws we have already prosecuted?

There is no reason to believe that waterboarding is anything but illegal. There is no compelling argument that it could ever be consistent with U.S. law. There is no ambiguity here. No shades of gray. It is clear to me that water boarding is illegal. It is clear to my colleagues Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner that waterboarding violates U.S. law. The only person that it is not clear to is Judge Mukasey.

I have spent some time trying to understand why Judge Mukasey refused to confirm something that is so clear under our laws. The only thing I can come up with is that his statement is consistent with the current Bush administration policy. It protects administration officials who have admitted waterboarding occurred on their watch, and it tacitly permits President Bush to continue utilizing waterboarding as an interrogation technique.

It strikes me as more than a little coincidental that on his first day of testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Mukasey was not afraid to depart with administration policy and assert his independence. Yet on the second day of testimony, he all of a sudden began to play the role of loyal footsoldier.

One has to wonder whether this change of heart occurred under pressure from the administration. If nothing else, it certainly makes me wonder whether Judge Mukasey will be as independent of a thinker and an actor as he led us all to believe he would be.

I hope that I am wrong about Judge Mukasey. This is a critical point in history for the Justice Department. Since the beginning of the Bush administration, we have seen the influence of political appointees expand exponentially. We have seen good, qualified, dedicated prosecutors fired and replaced by Bush loyalists. We have seen the number of civil rights prosecutions drop, and we have seen clearly discriminatory voter I.D. laws approved by partisan political appointees over the objections of experienced career employees.

The Justice Department clearly needs new leadership. It needs to be cleaned up. It needs someone who will not only stop the continuing politicalization but reverse the effects of what has already happened.

If confirmed, I hope that Judge Mukasey will be that kind of leader. I hope that he will exhibit the independence and honesty that he said he would when I met with him. I hope he is as committed to upholding the laws of the United States as Attorney General as he appeared to be as a United States Judge. I hope that his statements on waterboarding are an exception to, not an indication of, the role he will play as Attorney General.

But, I cannot vote on hope alone. I have to vote on facts. And, given the facts available, I simply cannot support Judge Mukasey's nomination.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, October 31, 2007.

Hon. Michael B. Mukasey,

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP,

New York, NY.

Dear Judge Mukasey: We welcome your acknowledgement in

yesterday's letter that the interrogation technique known as

waterboarding is ``over the line'' and ``repugnant,'' and we

appreciate your recognition

that Congress possesses the authority to ban interrogation

techniques. These are important statements, and we expect

that they will inform your views as Attorney General. We also

expect that, in that role, you will not permit the use of

such a practice by any agency of the United States

Government.

You have declined to comment specifically on the legality

of waterboarding, deeming it a hypothetical scenario about

which it would be imprudent to opine. Should you be

confirmed, however, you will soon be required to make

determinations regarding the legality of interrogation

techniques that are anything but hypothetical. Should this

technique come before you for review, we urge that you take

that opportunity to declare waterboarding illegal.

Waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear

violation of U.S. law. In 2005, the President signed into law

a prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as

those terms are understood under the standards of the U.S.

Constitution. There was at that time a debate over the way in

which the Administration was likely to interpret these

prohibitions. We stated then our strong belief that a fair

reading of the ``McCain Amendment'' outlaws waterboarding and

other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute

that waterboarding ``shocks the conscience.''

It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by

the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA), and it was the clear

intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. As the authors

of the statute, we would note that the MCA enumerates grave

breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that

constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is

an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict ``serious and

nontransitory mental harm,'' which the MCA states (but your

letter omits) ``need not be prolonged.'' Staging a mock

execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a

clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the

negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration

officials that this language, which applies to all

agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.

We share your revulsion at the use of waterboarding and

welcome your commitment to review existing legal memoranda

covering interrogations and their consistency with current

law. It is vital that you do so, as anyone who engages in

this practice, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts

himself at risk of criminal prosecution, including under the

War Crimes Act, and opens himself to civil liability as well.

We must wage and win the war on terror, but doing so is

fully compatible with fidelity to our laws and deepest

values. Once you are confirmed and fully briefed on the

relevant programs and legal analyses, we urge you to publicly

make clear that waterboarding can never be employed.

Sincerely,

John McCain,

United States Senator.

Lindsey Graham,

United States Senator.

John Warner,

United States Senator.

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

The President shall be notified of the Senate's action.

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

Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, to express outrage at the continued injustice carried out by the Castro regime inside of Cuba and to highlight that we are at a critical time for democracy inside of Cuba. This past Monday, as many of us were sipping coffee and driving to work, 70 young Cuban dissidents were arrested, detained, and harassed. Ten have been released but others remain detained.

What was their crime that got them arrested? Were they destroying property? Were they stealing food? Were they acting violently? No, none of that. They were walking down a street in Havana, and while they were peacefully walking down that street together, they had on their arms this wristband--this wristband, a simple white wristband--that has one word written on it, ``cambio,'' which in Spanish means ``change.''

This one simple gesture was strong enough to have them thrown in prison. This one simple gesture was strong enough to have them detained and harassed. But I also hope this one gesture would be strong enough to inspire us and to inspire those who love freedom and democracy and have respect for human rights around the globe.

This incident was not isolated. These youth knew the consequences their actions might very well bring them--this simple statement of wearing a white wristband that says ``change.'' Decades of repression has led to decades of fear. But these young people did not show fear. They showed courage and, I think, showed us where they want Cuba to go. They want it to change.

Their courage must not fall on deaf ears. We are listening and watching. From the Senate floor to the White House we are inspired by what these young people have shown us. They have shown us that Cuba can and will change, and this change will come from within Cuba, from the Cuban people themselves, from its youth. But they need our help, and we must continue to fight here to do what we can to empower them and to acknowledge them when they empower themselves.

We also have to build on this momentum. Just like last week, President Bush said:

The operative word in our future dealings with Cuba is not

stability. The operative word is freedom.

One of Cuba's most well-known dissidents, at least inside of Cuba suffers, while unfortunately, the rest of the world remains largely silent. It is interesting to me how American news stations go to Cuba and spend a lot of time with members of the regime but do not spend a lot of time focusing on those people inside of Cuba who are trying to create movements for freedom and democracy, as others did in other parts of the world at different times in our history, such as Lech Walesa did in Poland, such as Vaclav Havel did in the former Czechoslovakia, such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn did in Russia, and so many others such as Nelson Mandela did in his own country.

There was international spotlight on these people as they were given a chance by the world's acknowledgment to try to create movements for freedom and democracy in peaceful ways within their own society. Yet in Cuba, somehow, because there are those who have lived with the romanticism of the Castro regime and do not understand it is nothing less than an oppressive dictatorship, they somehow seem to look the other way.

I want to talk just briefly, before I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Florida, about one of those dissidents who gives inspiration to these young people who were arrested simply for wearing this plastic white bracelet that says ``change.''

Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, in his absence because he is in jail-- languishing in Castro's jail--will be receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom next week. Dr. Biscet may not be a household name in America, but he is probably the best known political prisoner inside of Cuba.

Let me read a little about him:

During the Black Spring of 2003, was sentenced to 25 years

in prison. The prosecution was the most severe of several

that Dr. Biscet had to endure since 1986, when he first

publicly declared himself an opponent of the dictatorship.

Barely a month before he was arrested, Dr. Biscet had

completed a 3-year prison sentence for, among other

``crimes,'' displaying the Cuban flag upside down as a form

of protest. Before he was imprisoned, Dr. Biscet opposed the

regime on several fronts.

In 1986, a year after he graduated from medical school, he

protested the long hours Cuban doctors had to work without

pay. In 1997, he started the Lawton Foundation for Human

Rights and conducted a secret 10-month study of abortion

techniques that found, among other things, that many babies

were killed after they were born alive.

In February of 1998, Dr. Biscet was kicked out of the Cuban

national health care system, making it impossible for him to

work as a physician because of the principled positions he

took.

During Pope John Paul II's visit to Cuba in January of

1998, activists with the Lawton Foundation publicly

demonstrated for the release of Cuban political prisoners.

They went on a 40-day liquid fast to demand the release of

political prisoners and to draw attention to the human rights

situation on the island.

But by the end of 1999, the dictatorship had enough of Dr.

Biscet. On November 3, 1999, he was arrested and eventually

sentenced to 3 years in prison for the so-called crimes of

dishonoring national symbols--that is, displaying the Cuban

flag upside down--public disorder, and inciting delinquent

behavior. He finished his sentence in late 2002. But only 36

days after finishing that sentence, he was rearrested again

while preparing to meet with a group of human rights

activists.

After several months in jail, he was formally charged with

being a threat to state security and sentenced to 25 years in

prison.

And he languishes there today. His crime? Seeking peaceful change in his country. His crime? Talking about the death of young born children. His crime? Fighting against a repressive regime. Yet in America, there is silence. There is silence.

It is amazing to me that such a person could write a letter like this even though he has gone through some of the worst things that someone can go through in their life: constant harassment, imprisonment. Earlier this year he wrote an open letter from himself from the Kilo 5.5 Prison in Pinar del Rio, Cuba, that got out. The letter says:

To my fellow Cubans, wherever you find yourselves, whether

in our enslaved island, or in exile in any part of the world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full letter be printed in the Record.

I want to read only two paragraphs of it:

To those who feel exhausted after more than 40 years of

constant oppression and of unfruitful efforts. To those whose

frustrations and discontent have caused them to lose their

moral compass. To those who have concluded that we must

appease the oppressor. To them I ask:

Is it acceptable to the memory of the thousands of young

Cubans, our best sons, who were executed by firing squads for

the simple crime of defending our right to full liberty, to

now accept complacency? Do those tens of thousands of

compatriots who spent decades in prison, and who are still in

a prison system whose horrors we can only imagine, deserve

only partial liberty? Do those countless families who were

separated from their loved ones and destroyed in the process,

or those who have perished at sea, or who have died in exile

dreaming of returning to their country, deserve that we now

accept the crumbs that we are being offered? Shall we accept

defeat after nearly a half a century of patriotic heroism in

search of liberty and democracy, or shall we show the world

that the most brutal--

The most brutal--

brand longest lasting dictatorship in our time could not

extinguish the unbreakable spirit of [the] liberty of the

Cubans?

That is Dr. Biscet from jail. Those young people who marched on the street with a very simple message--with a very simple plastic bracelet: ``cambio,'' ``change,'' they are inspired by the Dr. Biscet of Cuba and others.

Finally, it is amazing to me that when the island of Cuba is engulfed by a tropical storm, instead of making preparations for the people of Cuba to be safe, state security is making arrests of young people who peacefully walk down a street in Havana because of a simple bracelet but also a powerful message of change. It speaks volumes about what that regime is about.

I hope our colleagues use this tragic and other tragic sets of circumstances inside of Cuba to think about what our policy should be to this regime. I am reminded, standing up here with my colleague from Florida, of our successful fight to increase funds to our democracy assistance programs inside Cuba which help people create peaceful change in their own country.

We are at a critical time for democracy in Cuba, and the Cuban people are the fuel. It is the Cuban people who have faced fear and repression for decades. Yet they continue to fight for change. It starts and it will finish with them. This is why my heart and support go out to them, for what they do is more meaningful and powerful than most can imagine. That is why we grieve for those arrested and harassed and incarcerated and languishing in Castro's jails.

We are also encouraged. We know they grow stronger. We come to the floor of the Senate to make sure they understand they are not alone.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak once again about the cost of the war in Iraq here at home. This is the third speech I have stood up to give in the series that I intend to continue to give about what the Iraq war is costing us here at home, beyond the immeasurable cost of lives. Over 3,839 American lives have been lost--those are priceless--and 28,327 Americans have been seriously injured in the service of their country.

Since I started giving these speeches 2 weeks ago, $5 billion more has gone from the Treasury and has been spent in Iraq. It brings the total amount taken from the American people's pockets to $455 billion. Next month, another $10 billion will be sent over to Iraq, and it will be gone forever.

Americans trusted the Government with that money. When the numbers are that outrageously high, we all have to constantly be asking ourselves a simple question: What is going to make a bigger difference in our lives--using the money to fix the major problems we have facing the Nation every day or fighting a war that has achieved nothing for any of us? Could America have achieved more out of that money spending it on hospitals or lifesaving cancer research, schools and universities, food for the needy, roads, train tracks, bridges and airports, or the catastrophe that is the war in Iraq?

President Bush likes to use the line that ``we are fighting them over there

so that we don't have to fight them here.'' I think Americans have figured out that what he really means is we are spending all of our money over there, and therefore we have none to spend here.

I have already spoken out about the massive holes in our homeland security that the war funding in Iraq could have closed being used here at home. I have spoken about the difference that funding could have made for millions of Americans who have to play Russian roulette with their lives because they simply don't have health insurance, including millions of children who would be covered under the bill which is currently before the Senate, a bill the President threatens once again to veto while asking for $200 billion more in war funds this year alone--funds which, by the way, he doesn't even pay for. He wants to make his fiscal bones on the backs of children who have no health care coverage. They are the most important asset we have in our Nation and also the most fragile asset we have in our Nation. He says: Well, this bill is not fiscally acceptable. Yet he can, at the same time, send a request to us for $200 billion, which he doesn't pay for. Not only does he not give children their health insurance, he adds a mountain of debt on their backs for the future. That is totally irresponsible.

I have talked many times about children's health insurance. I note, too, as we move to this vote, I don't know why there are still some advocating knocking parents off children's health insurance. Children and parents together successfully brought in more children to the program. Why is it that there are those Members of Congress who want to push more Americans into the vast number of the uninsured in this country? Because that is what they are advocating at the end of the day.

Today I wish to talk about what America would look like if we spent the money George Bush is spending on failing to rebuild Iraq to repair our own battered infrastructure at home. Yes, we are spending a lot of money, billions of dollars in Iraq, with which we fail even to rebuild Iraq. Not only are we failing to rebuild Iraq, we certainly do not have the resources at home.

Is it the Iraq war or better transportation in our country? There is no way to put a price tag on the immense frustration we feel with our systems of transportation. If you have ever slammed your hands on the steering wheel because traffic is unbearable so you are going to miss your meeting or be late to pick up your child at school, if you ever had your train delayed or have been jammed inside a subway car that was not built to carry the number of people who are stuffed in there, if you have ever been stuck waiting in an airport terminal or trapped on a plane sitting on a tarmac waiting to take off hour after hour, then you know our transportation systems are stretched to the limit, and sometimes they break.

Thirteen people paid the ultimate price and 100 more were injured at the terrible, tragic collapse of the bridge in Minnesota a few months ago. It is scary how easily that could happen again. Here is a truly shocking statistic. The number of bridges that are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete in this country is enormous. It is about 160,000 bridges, 25 percent of all the bridges in the country. That means if you have driven over four bridges, the odds are that one of them is not in particularly great shape, and that is incredibly scary.

What does it cost to stop another tragedy such as the one in Minneapolis from happening? The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the cost of maintaining and replacing obsolete or deteriorating bridges is about $7.4 billion a year. That is the cost of staying even, not allowing the overall quality of our bridges to further deteriorate.

If we spent on transportation what we spend on the Iraq war, we could pay off the entire cost of what the Society of Civil Engineers estimates would be the cost of maintaining and replacing all those obsolete or deteriorating bridges in 22 days. We could take care of every bridge in America and make everybody safer in 22 days for the cost of the war in Iraq--22 days. That is another example of what the war costs: bridges you can feel confident about, that you will get home safely to your family versus less than a month in Iraq.

Today construction is beginning on the Minneapolis bridge that will replace the one that collapsed. The cost: $234 million. We spend that money in Iraq in less than 1 day.

Americans are also feeling the hassle of commuting by car or plane, especially for long distances. Oil prices are hitting record highs. Many feel that petroleum production is reaching a peak. Burning oil thickens our air with smog and stokes the fires of the global climate crisis, threatening to drown buildings on our coastlines under water and create massive droughts inland. If we don't create viable transportation options that will end our dependence on oil, America is going to be in big trouble.

With all this in mind, yesterday the Senate passed a bill to boost funding for Amtrak. We passed that bill so the great American relationship with the railroad could be restored and brought to new peaks of excellence. Funding for the Amtrak bill will be $19.2 billion over 6 years. That money would make passenger transportation easier, it would improve rail security, it would make our air cleaner, and it would be a boost to the economy. But like every appropriations bill that has come or is on its way to the President's desk under the Democratic Congress, the administration has argued that we don't have money for good public transportation systems.

While President Bush's mouth is moving, his hand is signing checks for other items. What the Amtrak bill would spend in 6 years, the President spends in Iraq in 2 months while we are trying to have a national rail transportation system that gets sales forces from small and mid-size companies to work with intercity travel to sell their products or services, to get people to great institutions of research and also great institutions of healing and hospitals, to get people maybe to the Nation's Capital or to other major cities along the Northeast corridor, to have the opportunity after a post-September 11 world to understand that multiple modes of transportation are critical--if we have a terrorist incident in one part of the country, we can move people along, as on that fateful day. What was open for intercity travel when every airplane was grounded? It was Amtrak. Yet the President says: Oh, no, I am going to veto that bill.

What we are going to spend in 6 years to make Amtrak a world-class rail system, the President spends in Iraq in under 2 months. That is what the war costs: vastly improved American railroads versus 2 months of bloody chaos in Iraq.

The costs of this war, in my mind, are unimaginable. The Congressional Budget Office put out a report projecting that the Iraq war will cost, at the rate we are going, $1.9 trillion, nearly $2 trillion. It is incredibly hard to put that money into perspective, but so we can get an idea of how vast that sum is, paving the entire Interstate Highway System over the course of 3\1/2\ decades only costs $425 billion. Some estimates say the Interstate Highway System returns $6 for every $1 we spend in economic opportunity and growth. The Iraq war has returned zero dollars for every billion dollars spent.

So we can get an idea of how vast that sum is with the money spent in Iraq, we could pave a four-lane American highway from Chicago to Milwaukee with an entire inch of solid gold. We could pave a four-lane American highway from Chicago to Milwaukee with an entire inch of solid gold. And if you made the thickness less than an inch of solid gold, you could easily gild a highway from sea to shining sea. That is what the war costs. It costs so much, the amount of money starts to exceed what it would cost to pay even for our most ludicrous dreams.

We have to use our imaginations as to where that money could go because for a lot of it, we don't know where it is going. Billions of dollars have gone missing in Iraq. According to a report released by the special inspector general for Iraq earlier this week, the rest has largely failed to build Iraq's infrastructure. Meanwhile, infrastructure in America still needs serious help. We don't have money accounted for in Iraq that we are sending to rebuild the Iraq infrastructure. The rest that we do account for, the inspector general says it

is largely failing to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, and we don't have the resources to meet our challenges at home.

It is time for us to make a choice: Will we put this country on a track to recovery or watch it barrel down the rails to deterioration? Will we pave the highway to success for our people or leave that road to rust and rot? Will we watch our economy take off, the aspirations and dreams of our people soar to new heights, or will we ground our Nation, leaving thousands to face the congestion that gridlocks so many forms of transportation in so many places, leaving thousands waiting in the terminals of frustration, waiting for something to change, for something finally to change?

Thinking about our transportation needs is another way to think about what we want the United States of America to look like as a nation. As someone who travels quite a bit across the landscape of the country, I have experienced all these frustrations with all of these different modes of transportation. And transportation is about more than getting from one place to another. It is about economic opportunity and commerce. It is about getting products to market. It is about getting people to service. It is about getting people to important institutions so they can be healed. It is about creating economic opportunity. It is about uniting families from coast to coast. It is about the quality of air and the environment we collectively enjoy by getting more people out of cars. It is about, by the same token, the opportunity to have multiple modes of security. It has so many dimensions to it, but all those dimensions go unresponded to because we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the war in Iraq.

Those needs are yet another reason it is time to end this war because when it comes to the failed war in Iraq, American families are being taken for a ride.

It is time to soar again, it is time to reinforce with the strongest iron and steel the bridges to safety and success, time to clear off the barricades of the road to opportunity, time to put America on the highest speed track we can, and to make sure we are always first in flight high above the clouds. Those goals are not imaginary or unattainable. They are very much within our reach. But for that, we have to change the course in Iraq and invest in America at home.

I will continue to come to the floor to speak about different dimensions of the cost of this war in Iraq. It is a cost the American people can no longer suffer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 1, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to consider pending nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Gregory Jacob, of New Jersey, to be Solicitor of Labor for the U.S. Department of Labor, and the nomination of Howard Radzely, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor for the U.S. Department of Labor. The hearing will commence on Thursday, November 1, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct an oversight hearing on the Impact of the Flood Control Act of 1944 on Indian Tribes along the Missouri River.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct an Executive Business Meeting on Thursday, November 1,2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda

I. Bills: S. 1946, Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act (Leahy, Cornyn, Sessions); S. 2168, Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act (Leahy, Specter, Durbin, Grassley); and S. 352, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007 (Grassley, Schumer, Leahy, Specter, Graham, Feingold, Cornyn, Durbin).

II. Nominations: John Daniel Tinder, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit and Julie L. Myers, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 1, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 1, 2007, at 2 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Small Business Administration: Is the 7 (a) Program Achieving Measurable Outcomes?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 1, 2007, at 9 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to hold a business meeting to consider the America's Climate Security Act of 2007, S. 2191.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the rest of the Democratic time in morning business.

Mr. President, right up the street from here, right up Pennsylvania Avenue, is the White House. It is not far, a little over a mile. But what has been made abundantly clear over the past 10 months since Congress changed hands, what has been made abundantly clear is that when it comes to the priorities of the families of this Nation, when it comes to the values they hold, the distance between here and the White House is many miles.

Americans have seen for themselves what we in Congress want to do for them. They have seen some truly meaningful and landmark initiatives achieved on behalf of American families: The 9/11 Commission bill, bringing security to all our communities; the most sweeping ethics reform in a generation, extracting lobbying influence from the policies that affect all of us; the first increase in the minimum wage, the first raise for American workers in more than a decade; and the most significant college affordability package since the GI bill, because we recognize that a good education is the great equalizer.

But that is not all we are trying to do for middle-class Americans, for working Americans, for families in this country. That is the tip of the iceberg. We want to help American families by investing in security, education, and health care, and we have legislation to do that. Yes, there will be plenty more ideas, plenty more initiatives, plenty more investments in the people of this country whom we stand together to support but only to have the President and his friends in Congress block our progress.

Time after time, a majority of the Members of this body have lined up behind truly important legislation, only to have the President take out his veto pen or our Republican colleagues in the Senate strike up a filibuster.

Yesterday I saw President Bush, flanked by some of his top allies from Congress, complaining about what he claims Congress has not done this year. It takes a lot of nerve for the President to say that, when he received from this Congress landmark security legislation, landmark education legislation, landmark ethics reforms, and the first minimum wage raise in a decade. He signed them all into law, all within 10 months.

It takes a lot of nerve for President Bush to say we are wasting time, when he, along with his allies, has refused the children's health legislation, stem cell research legislation, and legislation to change the course in Iraq.

I know it is Halloween, but the legislative graveyard for which the President is the grim reaper is not a trick or a treat. It is downright scary that the President can be so disconnected from the values and hopes of mainstream America.

Ask the American people: What would they rather us do in Washington-- stand up for lifesaving research, lower energy costs, get our troops out of Iraq or kill initiative after initiative that would benefit American families? In Congress, we are going to try to give the President what we call in golf a mulligan on one of the most important investments we can make in our country, the health of our children. The first time, he vetoes it, sending the message that millions of children who have nowhere else to turn are unworthy of a strong Federal commitment.

We believe that is fundamentally wrong. The President has to choose if he is going to sign it into law or again write a big ``no'' on an investment in America's children. This is a President who says, no, no, no, when it comes to investing in our families, but yes, yes, yes, when it comes to more troops, more time, more money for his stay-the-course plan in Iraq.

This is a President who does not see the irony in sticking out the one hand to ask for $200 billion for Iraq this year, while using the other hand to veto health coverage for poor American children. This is a President who has no problem with killing a child's health bill that would have been paid for with 3\1/2\ months of Iraq funding. This is a President who says: We are fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them over here, when what he means is: We are spending all our money over there, and we do not have it to spend here.

In Congress, we want a strong investment in children's health care, in stem cell research, in changing the course in Iraq. We have offered those to the President. He has rejected it. The President and his allies seem to want to stay the course in Iraq and not much else.

Well, America is going to see a lot of ghouls and goblins tonight. But what is truly scary is that the legislative grim reaper that threatens millions of families without health care insurance, the demon of oil addiction, and the specter of an endless war, are not going to be gone when we wake up. That is the reality we face. That is why we continue to challenge to change the course.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation in which the Senate finds itself at this moment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes. Should a Member of the Republican side of the aisle seek the floor, I will be happy to yield at that time.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program and why those who are opposing the bill are making this a nightmare for children. When I first came to the floor in support of the bill on July 31, I knew there were those who did not share my support, but I thought they would merely be a road bump to reauthorization. Now it seems we have a roadblock to children getting critical care they need.

How many times can you veto or vote against children receiving health care and not raise a question as to your role as a representative of the people? How many times can you veto or vote against children receiving health care and then turn around and take pictures with babies and families back in your

home State? How many times can you veto or vote against children receiving health care and then still argue that you care about the well-being of children other than your own?

I don't understand how we have gotten to this point, but let me make this very simple. The bill at its core provides health care for poor children. Yet there are those in Congress and the White House who are missing that bottom line. More important, their votes are hurting our Nation's children.

There are 9 million children in America who suffer in silence because they do not have health care; 6 million of them are eligible for the Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid, but they are not enrolled.

That keeps me up at night. I hope it keeps up at night others who have to cast a vote soon as well.

I want to be sure we know the families and children we are talking about. The families we seek to cover work every day at some of the toughest jobs in America--some of them jobs none of us would want to do, but they work at it every day. They work at jobs that offer no health care coverage whatsoever and they do not make enough money from their employment to afford private coverage. It is the children in these families we are trying to cover. So let's talk about the reasons why there are those who continue to vote to bar children from health care.

That is strong language, but I have had enough of sugar-coating this issue. The new bill includes substantial revisions to try to reach out to colleagues who have raised issues and directly addresses a number of the concerns they have talked about. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new bill would continue to cover nearly 4 million uninsured children by 2012, at a cost of about $35 billion over 5 years. That is a fraction of what we spend in Iraq. That is in addition to the over 6 million children already covered by this program.

Those opposed to this bill have been shouting about how the bill needs to cover more low-income children. Good news, the new bill would further increase our focus on covering the lowest income uninsured children. The new bill would prohibit any coverage above 300 percent of the poverty line, except for some who have already been grandfathered in. Limiting new coverage to 300 percent is a harder line than the original bill, and it is a concrete ceiling for new coverage. It also changes the financial incentives States receive to enroll more children, and it ensured we are targeting the enrollment of low-income children.

The new bill only provides these incentives to States when they enroll Medicaid-eligible children and no longer includes incentives for enrolling SCHIP children, as was in the original bill.

In fact, this new bill will cover an additional 100,000 children as compared to the original bill, for a grand total of 3.9 million children gaining coverage under the bill on which we will be voting cloture. Of these children, essentially half are Medicaid eligible. These children are the low-income children many of our colleagues are talking about. This new bill brings in 200,000 more Medicaid-eligible children than the first bill.

We have listened and we have made changes. But compromising on children's health can only go so far. The second issue I have heard, and it makes my blood boil, is the argument that undocumented immigrants would gain coverage under this bill. I know it is Halloween so we are going to scare the American people as best we can, but this is a tactic that cannot stand. Let's make it clear: Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid and CHIP, they have never been, and nothing in this bill changes that. Nothing in this bill changes that. It is a shame there are Members who still come on the floor using that argument.

In fact, the new bill tightens citizenship requirements. States will seek to verify names and Social Security numbers but also have to verify citizenship with information from the Social Security Administration. The Social Security Administration will check the information received from the States to determine that the information matches and also check to see if the database shows that the applicant is a citizen. If they can confirm--great. We have another citizen with health care. If not, the State has to require original documents to prove citizenship. This is in no way an open door, and in no way should we allow this to continue to be used as a false reason to not give health care to children in this country.

I ask my colleagues to stop tying up this issue, trying to make children's health care an immigration debate so we can have it every night on the nightly news being about immigration. Oh, it is about immigration. It is not about immigration. It is about children's health care; children who do not have it, cannot afford it, and will not have it unless this Congress acts.

Some have also raised the question about adults. The reality is we cover some parents. This administration gave us waivers to do it because they said it is a good thing: Let's cover parents who are also in these jobs, working hard, not able to afford health care, not getting it at work--because we are getting more children involved through their parents. By the way, we happen to cover more Americans-- isn't that a terrible thing? We happen to cover more Americans, of the 47 million who have no health care coverage whatsoever. It is a terrible thing.

I think it is quite a good thing. I have seen it succeed in my home State of New Jersey. We have found a strong correlation between enrollment of parents and enrollment of children.

Finally, if values match our actions, this bill needs to be supported by all Members in the House and Senate and signed into law by the president. It is time for President Bush to stop making his fiscal conservative bones on the health care of children. It is time for the President to put away the veto pen and allow doctors to take out their stethoscopes to make our children healthier. It is time to give the children of America what the President and every Member of the Senate and Congress has, health care coverage, health care for America's most precious asset but also its most vulnerable asset--our children.

I yield the floor.