Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Safe and Fair Enforcement and Recall for Meat, Poultry, and Food--SAFER--Act. This legislation will protect consumers from contaminated meat and poultry by giving the Department of Agriculture, USDA, and the Department of Health and Human Service's Food and Drug Administration, FDA, greater authority to remove unsafe products from the market.

If enacted, the bill would give USDA and FDA the following three key tools in keeping food safe for consumers: authority to mandate that a company recall unsafe meat, poultry, and food products if a company fails to voluntarily recall unsafe or unwholesome food; require companies to notify USDA or FDA if they know a product is adulterated or misbranded; and authority to USDA and FDA to levy civil penalties if a company violates federal meat, poultry, or food laws. USDA and FDA are lacking fundamental authorities to maintain a safe and secure food supply. This legislation would change that.

Foodborne illness continues to be a far too common problem in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that each year 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 1,800 deaths can be attributed to foodborne diseases. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that the cost of foodborne illness is $6.9 billion a year in medical

costs, productivity losses, and premature deaths. Even in the face of such numbers, companies say USDA and FDA do not need more effective tools to enforce food safety standards. They say the food industry is compliant with voluntary recalls. It is true most companies do comply, but there have been problems and delays in recalls. The problem is, USDA and FDA have no backup authority to order a recall if the company refuses. What happens then? Without this legislation, USDA and FDA have to lose precious time to get unsafe product off the shelves. Another criticism of this legislation is that it would give USDA too much power to mandate recalls, and may even push the Department to go too far. However, the bill has a procedure for due process, so that if a company has evidence that a recall or civil penalties are unjustified, they are appealable before an administrative law judge.

In addition to mandatory recall authority, the authority to levy a financial penalty if a company does not comply with our food safety laws is crucial to enforcing the standards. Civil penalties are an effective deterrent to stop violators and are already used to enforce analogous federal safety standards. Currently, USDA and FDA can only withdraw inspectors and shut down a plant that repeatedly or willfully violates our meat, poultry and food laws, which can often be a lengthy and costly process. Such drastic action is very seldom even taken. The ability to levy civil penalties gives USDA and FDA a much-needed tool for ensuring compliance with our food safety laws.

USDA recently proposed a rule to provide the public with valuable information about meat and poultry that is voluntarily recalled. The rule will disclose the names and locations of stores where such products have been sold. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, it is not enough to protect consumers. This USDA rule does little more than place the burden on consumers to protect their families or themselves from foodborne illnesses. The SAFER Meat, Poultry, and Food Act would act as a complement to this USDA proposal, and would give USDA, as well as FDA, the power to enforce the food safety standards they have set. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect the American consumer.

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

Mr. President, here we sit in the Senate, quorum call after quorum call. Not much is happening. We just had our meeting of Democratic

leaders for lunch, and we are wondering what is going on here. Here we sit. Nothing is happening.

Over a year ago, the House of Representatives voted on and passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Act, and sent it over to the Senate. It is pending at the desk. That was over a year ago.

We have asked repeatedly--repeatedly--for the majority leader to bring up this bill so that we can debate it--I am sure under a time agreement--and pass it and send it to the President. The bill is supported by a majority of Senators on a bipartisan basis. It enjoys large majorities in every public opinion poll, which is hardly surprising because stem cell research holds tremendous promise for curing illnesses and saving lives.

One obstacle stands in the way of moving ahead aggressively in stem cell research. The Senate has squandered over a year waiting for the majority leader to make good on his pledge to bring H.R. 810 to the floor for a vote. So here we sit.

Why aren't we bringing up H.R. 810? Families with children with juvenile diabetes, families with members who are stricken by Alzheimer's, people with spinal cord injuries either from birth or from an accident or other illnesses, and people with other neurological disorders and diseases--these are the ones scientists tell us can be helped the most and the fastest through the application of stem cell therapy, which would be the result of stem cell research.

We just had a Health Week here, too. We had a Health Week about a month ago, and we didn't bring up H.R. 810 then. Everybody talked a lot about everything, but we didn't do anything.

The fact is, I said H.R. 810 has support on both sides. I just mention that Senators Specter, Hatch, and Smith in particular have urged the majority leader to bring up the bill. As a matter of fact, last year, Senator Frist himself gave a speech on the floor and endorsed H.R. 810. But again the majority leader has refused to bring it up for a vote.

We have written him letters. I have taken the floor numerous times, especially in lulls such as this when nothing is happening. It looks as if we will go all through today and tomorrow and, of course, then we won't be here on Friday. No wonder the American people have such a low opinion of this place. No wonder. They don't think we are doing anything, and they are right, we are not doing anything. Especially we are not attending to the urgent business of the American people.

People are suffering from incurable illnesses. People are hoping we will move ahead aggressively in embryonic stem cell research and in all areas of stem cell research, but we still sit here and dawdle, take our time, and don't do anything.

I don't mean to make it a partisan issue because it has never been a partisan issue. As I said, we have a number of Republicans supporting this bill in this body, and it was passed in the House with both Republican and Democratic support. I will say this: If the Democrats were in charge of this Senate, we would have had H.R. 810 up by now and would have passed it and would have sent it to the President.

Yes.

That is right.

Mr. President, I would respond by saying that if anybody knows about saving lives and providing good health to people in America, it is the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.

I was privileged to be here when the Senator got his amendment through to ban smoking on airlines. I remember the day you got on an airplane and it was packed with smoke. Then they had a divider, and in one place you could smoke and in another place you couldn't, and still the air would be filled with smoke. It was the Senator from New Jersey--God bless him--who got that amendment through. I will never forget, right after that amendment passed, I used to fly back and forth to Iowa, and flight stewardess after flight stewardess would come back to me and say: Do you know Senator Lautenberg? And I would say: Sure, I do. And they would say: Well, please tell him thanks. We have been breathing that smoke for years, and now we don't have to. So I thank the Senator for the countless lives he has saved and the working conditions he has made better for all of the people, and all of the passengers who fly on airplanes have the Senator to thank for that.

So when the Senator from New Jersey talks about the vaccine for cervical cancer, he is right on the mark, and he keeps up his long tradition of his focus on health care for all Americans. It is a shame that we have a vaccine which could be given to women, young women--as you know, I think it is three shots, if I am not mistaken, and I think it is good for life.

So you could take it as a young girl. And what are we doing right now? Nothing. We should be moving ahead aggressively in this country and in other countries where cervical cancer is a killer. As the Senator knows, it is a killer. Yet we are not doing anything. We sit here doing nothing. It is in that spirit which I thank the Senator for bringing that up. I yield to him.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, sign me up.

Mr. President, I appreciate that. The fact is, yes, I think it is sick. There is some illness people have when they say we shouldn't be giving cervical cancer vaccinations to women because they may become more promiscuous. What kind of sick thought is

that? What kind of sick thought is that? But we hear it. It is out there. It is the same as those who are trying to stop embryonic stem cell research: Oh, no, we can't destroy these embryos. Well, we had a hearing yesterday morning on this issue. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, has a bill in, and he testified before Senator Specter and me and Senator Durbin from Illinois, who was also there for that hearing. I think what came out of that hearing is we have over 400,000 embryos left over from in vitro fertilization which are now frozen which are going to be discarded because obviously the parents who had in vitro fertilization--once they have had their children and they don't want to have any more, the in vitro fertilization organization calls up and says: Do you want to keep these? And they say: Well, no, we don't want to have any more children. And so they throw them away. They do this every day. They destroy these every day.

What we are saying is, why not take these things with about 16 cells in them and take the cells out and use them to derive embryonic stem cells, which can become any of the cells in our body--nerve cells, muscle cells, tissue cells--and use them to advance the research so that we can cure those illnesses from which so many people suffer?

I will. Let me just say that a friend of mine recently passed away from ALS--Lou Gehrig's disease. If anyone has seen anyone get Lou Gehrig's disease and die of it, it is the worst. It is the worst. It is a death sentence as soon as you are told you have it, as soon as you are diagnosed with it. No one lives, and usually death occurs within a year to 2 years. As your muscles deteriorate and your lungs give out and you are no longer able to walk, to write, to speak, the mind continues on. You are aware of every second until the day, the minute you die. ALS--one of the most horrible diseases which afflicts mankind, humankind, and the scientists tell us one of the diseases which is in the target zone for embryonic stem cell research. Think about that. Yet we are told it is better to throw these away, take these in vitro fertilization leftover cells, throw them down the drain, but don't use them for life-giving research. I say to my friend from New Jersey, it is the same as those who want to stop women from getting vaccinations for cervical cancer because they think that, somehow, women will be more sexually promiscuous because of it. I don't understand that way of thinking.

I yield to my friend from Illinois who was at the hearing yesterday for any comments he would like to make.

Yes.

Right.

Mr. President, I am aware, I say to my friend from New Jersey. In fact, under the President's budget this year, as we are now giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthy, there is a cut in funding for the National Cancer Institute. For the first time in my career, since I have been here, we are actually cutting funding under the President's budget for the National Cancer Institute. Now, we here are going to try to put that money back in sometime this year, but I am just saying that the President's budget, what he sent to us, cuts money from the National Cancer Institute.

I say to my friend from Illinois, he is right on target. On August 9, 2001, President Bush got on television, national television--I remember watching him--and it was shortly after 9 p.m., and he made this executive finding that stem cells derived by our Federal researchers prior to 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001, were OK. We could use those for research. That was OK. That was ethical, moral, legitimate. But any stem cells derived after 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001 were not ethical; they were immoral, not legitimate, and could not be funded by the Federal Government.

I thought about that. I thought, why did he pick 9 p.m.? Why didn't he pick 9:15? Why wasn't it 10 p.m.? Or 8:52? Why 9? It was just plucked out of thin air. It seems to me if it was wrong before, it was wrong after. Or if it was correct and good before, it was correct and good after 9 p.m. It was totally arbitrary.

I say to my friend from Illinois, the other thing we found out is, out of these so-called 75 lines which supposedly we had--which we thought at the time we had enough--it is now down to 21 cell lines. And here is the kicker: Every single one of those cell lines that were derived have been contaminated with mouse cells. They have been grown on mouse feeder cells, so not one of them will probably ever be useful for human therapy. Not a one of them.

The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. If it had not been for President Bush's announcement on August 9, 2001, right after 9 p.m.--if it had not been for that, we would have had 5 more years, that have now gone by, of good science, good research under the ethical kinds of guidelines, as the Senator from Illinois just outlined. And we would be much further down the road toward saying to those families with diabetes, kids with juvenile diabetes,

people who have ALS, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's--we would be closer to saying hope is there because we are doing the research and we are going to find the cures. It will not happen unless and until we get over that Presidential proclamation of August 9, 2001.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to speak in opposition to the flag desecration amendment to the Constitution.

If I were strictly following my emotions, I would no doubt favor this amendment. After all, I can imagine few acts more despicable, offensive, and cowardly than to deliberately desecrate the flag of the United States of America. But in considering this constitutional amendment, which for the first time would amend the Bill of Rights, we have a solemn responsibility to separate reason from passion. We have a responsibility to preserve and protect the Stars and Stripes of the United States of America. But even more importantly, we have a responsibility to preserve and protect the principles and rights for which it stands.

Fortunately, instances of flag desecration in the United States are extremely rare. Nonetheless, there is no denying the emotions and anger that

are incited even by the thought of someone desecrating the American flag. I myself feel those emotions and that anger. I believe that we all do. We all have memories that cut deep to the heart, and when we see the flag on fire it feels like something burning inside of us.

I remember what the flag meant to my mother, an immigrant from what is now Slovenia, who came to America speaking just a few words in English. When I was growing up, the American flag was always proudly displayed in our home because, to my mother, that flag meant the freedom of her new country.

I have not forgotten my mother's pride, and even now the American flag, standing proudly by my desk, is the first thing I see when I go to work in the morning and the last thing I see when I leave to go home at night.

I remember, too, the friends I lost in Vietnam. I remember escorting the body of a fellow pilot to his home and presenting the American flag to his widow. The flag is our country's ultimate tribute to a fallen soldier.

So it is with strong feelings--right here in my stomach and right here in my heart--of rage and disgust that I view those who would desecrate my flag, defile my memories, and dishonor my heritage.

I think back to my days flying jets in the Navy.

I think of the friends I had, and the friends I continue to have as a proud member of American Legion Post 562 in my hometown of Cumming, IA.

Over the years, I have turned to my fellow veterans to see how they would vote on such an amendment. Some were for, some against. But I have been most impressed by the arguments of those who oppose a flag desecration amendment.

Frankly, I expected my neighbor, who earned five Purple Hearts in combat, to be gung-ho for a constitutional amendment. But he told me he was absolutely opposed to an amendment. He said, ``I fought for freedom. I didn't fight for doing away with freedom.''

An Iowa veteran I met at a coffee shop had this common-sense perspective. Speaking of the flag-burner in the case of Texas v. Johnson, he said: ``Look, this flag burner, this Greg Johnson, he's just one of a handful of kooks. Should we change the Bill of Rights, which has never been changed, for a handful of kooks?''

Most moving to me was the article I read years ago in the Cedar Rapids Gazette by a former prisoner of war, James Warner.

Let me read to you part of his article:

It hurts me to see other Americans willfully desecrate the

flag. But I have been in a communist prison where I looked

into the pit of hell. I cannot compromise on freedom. It

hurts to see the flag burned, but I part company with those

who want to punish the flag burners.

Mr. Warner went on to recount how, in a North Vietnamese prison camp, he was given a choice: He could renounce his country and leave, or stay and be tortured. James Warner chose to stay. The North Vietnamese tried to break his spirit but they couldn't. During one interrogation, his captor showed him a photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag.

``There,'' the North Vietnamese officer told him, ``People in your country protest against your cause. That proves you are wrong.''

``No,'' Warner said, ``That proves I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us.''

In that moment, the interrogator was on his feet--his face purple with rage, according to Warner's account. There was also pain in the interrogator's eyes, compounded by fear. The Communist feared freedom; only freedom could be used to defeat him.

Likewise, in 1989, the Chinese Communists feared the students in Tianamen Square who burned the Chinese flag. The students' protests were silenced with tanks and guns. As communism crumbled across Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, expressions of freedom took many forms: protests, speeches, underground newspapers, strikes--and yes, even flag desecrations. And when we saw those torn and burned flags, symbols of Communist domination, did we denounce these protestors for defiling their own State symbols? Of course not. We praised them for their acts of political defiance. Burning and tearing their flags represented a powerful act of political speech, a denunciation of the communist regimes that had oppressed those countries for decades.

And once the Communist regimes began to fall, what came next? Calls for Western-style guarantees of rights to freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. Many called for a constitution. They knew what some of us seem to forget: That the only way those freedoms can be protected is with an inviolable Bill of Rights such as our own. A Bill of Rights that has stood unchanged for more than two centuries--despite Civil War, Depression, two world wars, and powerful internal movements of dissent. Even at those times of profound turmoil, we resisted any temptation to amend the Bill of Rights.

As a veteran, I will never, ever do anything to show disrespect for the flag. At the same time, I will never, ever do anything that would diminish the freedom our flag represents.

In our churches, synagogues, and mosques, we are taught not to worship the idols of our faith, but rather the ideals of our faith. Likewise, patriotism is not measured, first and foremost, by our love for the flag as a physical object, but by our love for the rights and ideas the flag stands for.

I do not want to see the flag become another Golden Calf--an object to be worshipped for the sake of worshipping. The flag is only as powerful as the republic--and the rights and ideals--for which it stands.

Back in 1990, when the Senate first debated--and rejected--a flag desecration amendment, I remember reading a letter to the editor of the Burlington, IA, Hawkeye, written by a World War II veteran who had volunteered for duty. He wrote:

I served my country under the flag. I pledged allegiance to

the American flag, and to the Republic for which it stands.

`Stands' is the key. The flag stands for the government. The

government guarantees us free speech. My allegiance is to the

flag however it is displayed, cloth, paper, paint, or the one

that waves continuously in my mind. That one, in order to

burn, they would need to burn me. I like the Bill of Rights

just as it is. Exactly what the flag stands for.

So wrote the veteran from Mount Pleasant, IA. And he concluded with these words: ``Isn't it better to put up with a few disgusting frustrating acts of free speech than to open a Pandora's box?''

I have to agree with his characterization of this amendment as a ``Pandora's box'' which, once opened, could lead to other proposals to punch holes in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will reject this amendment, once again. But I believe this debate can have a positive legacy--not by diminishing our rights as citizens, but by increasing public displays of the flag, increasing people's knowledge and understanding of the flag's history, and increasing good citizenship and public service.

We are proud of the flag. Let us fly the flag.

We are proud of the flag. Let us tell our children and grandchildren about what that flag represents, what it means and why so many died for it.

That flag in my mother's house was not used as a tablecloth, it was not used as a scarf, it was not used as a piece of clothing. I grew up believing there was a proper way to hold the flag, a right way to display it. We need to take it a step further and educate people, young and old, as to the meaning behind the symbols--behind the flag and our Bill of Rights.

Mr. President, next week we celebrate 230 years since our Declaration of Independence. Fireworks will recall the `rocket's red glare' and the `bombs bursting' overhead when those who were first to wear the uniform of the United States Armed Forces put their lives on the line.

And in all of our 50 States, the American flag will be hailed, waving in the breeze over courthouses and city halls, public buildings and private homes. Pride will be felt and respect shown, not because it is mandated by law, but because it is embedded in our hearts.

I can think of no more patriotic way to celebrate the Fourth of July, no better way to show respect for the American flag and for the principles for which it stands, than by voting against this proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Mr. President, the first ever USA Special Olympics National Games will open this Saturday in Ames, IA. Looking ahead to this remarkable gathering of athletes, coaches, and family members from all across America, I want to salute the vision and leadership of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the founder and honorary chair of Special Olympics International.

No individual in the world is more respected and admired for her tireless advocacy on behalf of people with intellectual disabilities. For four decades, Eunice has pursued this advocacy with her trademark passion and tenacity. As executive director of the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation, she has been instrumental in establishing the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, as well as a network of mental retardation research centers at major medical schools across the United States.

In 1968, she established her most enduring legacy, the Special Olympics. Starting in Eunice's own backyard as a day camp for children with mental retardation, it has grown into a global movement that serves more than 2.2 million adults and children with intellectual disabilities in more than 150 countries.

I would be happy to yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, I am well aware of that historic hearing. This Saturday in Ames, I will chair a field hearing of the Labor/HHS/ Education Appropriations Subcommittee, which will essentially be a followup and update on the Senator's hearing in Anchorage 5 years ago.

And let me just echo the Senator's observation that Eunice Kennedy Shriver, in a voluntary capacity, has been one of America's great public servants. Public officials in Washington have the persuasion of power, but the gentlewoman from Massachusetts has the power of persuasion. She has used that power brilliantly to advance the well being of people with intellectual disabilities all across the world. And I share with the Senator from Alaska and all of our colleagues in the Senate a deep respect and appreciation for Eunice Kennedy Shriver's lifetime of service.

I am not certain how much time I want. Who is next in line? Are we going back and forth?

Mr. President, I looked over my remarks, and I say to the chairman, probably 20 minutes, I suppose. It depends if I go off.

I thank the President. I apologize to the President for having to sit there at this late hour. It wasn't my doing. But I did want to speak on this issue. It is one of major importance, and one about which I have not spoken on the Senate floor previously. So I beg the indulgence of the Chair at this late hour.

Mr. President, on May 3, I introduced a resolution in the Senate that offered a clear break from our current counterproductive course in Iraq allowing our Armed Forces to return to their focus to defeating the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001.

The resolution would do three things.

First, it states that the United States should not maintain a permanent military presence or military bases in Iraq.

Second, it states that the United States should not attempt to control Iraq's oil.

And, third, it states that the United States Armed Forces should be redeployed from Iraq as soon as practicable after the completion of Iraq's constitution-making process, or December 31 of 2006, whichever comes first.

My resolution is identical to the resolution introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Mike Thompson of California with at least six Republican cosponsors. As far as I know, it is the only Iraqi resolution introduced that has bipartisan support. So I introduced the same measure here in the Senate.

I continue to believe that only this resolution offers a clear, unambiguous, principled stand--a stand that can produce the results that we all want.

Only when the Iraqi Government faces a firm timetable for U.S. redeployment will it have the incentive to resolve its internal differences and stand on its own two feet.

And only when our government faces a firm timetable will it make urgent policy changes necessary to right our course in Iraq.

President Bush has it exactly backwards. He said that our Army will stand down only as the Iraqi Army stands up. The truth is that the Iraqi Army and government will stand up only when it is clear that the American military is committed to standing down by a date certain.

My resolution is a clear, unambiguous statement of our intention to move beyond the strategic blunder of Iraq which has distracted us from the fight against those who attacked us on September 11. Only such a clear break will allow us to recommit our military and intelligence resources to the unfinished task of crushing al-Qaida and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.

We need this new decisive direction because President Bush is unwilling to change his current policies in Iraq which are manifestly a failure.

Let us be clear. Staying the course effectively means stay forever. It means to stay and pay and stay and pay and stay and pay.

Already we have paid with more than 2,500 dead and more than 18,000 wounded. We will continue to pay a terrible price in terms of lives and treasure, not only to the end of President Bush's term but well into the term of his successor and beyond. And for what? For a failed approach in Iraq that in the judgment of a large majority of national security experts is damaging America's national security and making us less safe.

Because I believe we need a new direction, I will vote for both the Levin-Reed amendment and the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer amendment.

I commend my friend and my colleague, Senator Kerry, for his leadership on this issue. I was here this evening listening to him. I listened to his colloquy with the Senator from Virginia. I think it is clear that Senator Kerry is on the right course. Also, Senator Levin, I believe is also on the right course. So I will support both, and I do so because I believe that both are better than what we have now.

But I also want to be clear that neither one is going to pass. We know that. So we shouldn't agonize over which one we can support. It doesn't matter what we do; it won't become law.

So why are we doing this? We are doing it because we must put pressure on the President. We do it because we need to speak for the American people who are way ahead of us, way ahead of the President, way ahead of the White House, and way ahead of the Congress on this issue. They know what we are doing in Iraq--costing $7 billion a month, $9 million an hour, 2,500 dead, 18,000 maimed and injured--they know it is wrong. They know we have been misled into this war.

My position is simply that anything we can do to give voice to the American people that will hopefully pull the President back to a more rational, reasonable and sane policy, anything that will do that I will support.

I realize that some, including the President's top political adviser, are eager to politicize this issue in an election year. They can't wait to frame this as a debate between those who support our troops and those who want to retreat, between those who want to fight and those who want to surrender.

This is outrageous, and it is false. It is the same inflammatory demagoguery that tore our country apart during the Vietnam war. Just as we were misled into the Vietnam war, so we were in Iraq. All you have to think is weapons of mass destruction equals the Tonkin Gulf. Weapons of mass destruction is to Iraq what the Tonkin Gulf was to Vietnam. Both misled us into a drastic, terrible war.

Just as the Nixon administration was bent and misused intelligence to fit a preconceived belief on Vietnam, so would President Bush in Iraq. Just as we heard the arguments in the early 1970s about Vietnam, that we have to fight the Communists there or we will be fighting them here, now we hear that we have to fight the terrorists in Iraq before we fight them here.

Just as we said in Vietnam we will have to support the government because it is a free government elected by 80 percent of the people, so now we hear the same thing about Iraq and terrorists.

The echoes are resounding about what we hear from this administration and their policies for Iraq and what we heard for Vietnam.

Let us be clear about what I think this debate is really about. It is about charting a smarter, more focused offensive against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11. It is about acknowledging that Iraq did not attack us on September 11, but that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a costly distraction from our fight against those who did attack us.

It is about giving the government in Iraq incentives to get its act together; to overcome sectarian divisions and stand up a viable, self- sustaining army.

This debate is about acknowledging that staying the course is no virtue if the course we are on is demonstrably wrong. Indeed, it is about acknowledging that staying the course means stay and pay. Stay and pay. It means that our Armed Forces will continue to stay and pay dearly with more than 20,000 already killed, maimed, and wounded. For our beleaguered taxpayers, it means stay and pay more of their hard- earned tax dollars and the debt that is being piled on for our children and grandchildren to pay--$350 billion already on Iraq and counting.

The men and women of our Armed Forces deserve better than this.

Instead of putting bumper-stickers on our cars saying ``support our

troops,'' let us actually support our troops. Let us give them some hope for a way forward from the current stalemate and quagmire.

They have brilliantly completed the task they were sent to Iraq to accomplish. Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has been deposed. We are certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction--and never did. And the Iraqi people have a constitution and a democratically elected government.

To our troops goes great credit. They have achieved these things despite a series of disastrous decisions by their civilian leaders here in Washington.

President Bush himself has acclaimed the installation of a permanent Iraqi Government as a historic ``turning point.''

So the question is, why aren't our troops returning? Why are we still in Iraq with no commitment whatsoever even to a graduated redeployment?

Why has President Bush stated that we will be in Iraq at least through the end of his administration and into his successor's administration?

Why are we building what appears to be permanent military bases?

Why are we in the process of building a gigantic new United States embassy in Baghdad that will span 104 acres, the size of nearly 80 football fields?

What message does it send when the House Republican leadership 2 weeks ago insisted on stripping from the emergency supplemental appropriations bill Senate-passed language asserting that we will not build permanent bases or attempt to control Iraq's oil? We passed that in the Senate. The House Republicans took it out.

What message does that send to the insurgents and al-Qaida and the terrorists who would do us harm? None of these things give the impression that the United States plans on winding down our military and civilian presence or relinquishing our grip on Iraq.

To the contrary, it is easy to see how ordinary Iraqis as well as people across the world view this as the behavior of a conquering power that has no intention of leaving. Unfortunately, this perception creates continuing resentment. It feeds anti-Americanism. It continues to give powerful fuel to the insurgency, both in terms of motivation and recruitment, and it puts our American Armed Forces at greater risk.

It has now been more than 3 years since President Bush's speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. On that occasion, with a giant banner behind him a claiming ``Mission Accomplished,'' President Bush said triumphantly, ``Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.''

But today, 133,000 troops remain on the ground. President Bush again and again has signaled that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is open- ended and of indefinite duration.

This has given rise to suspicions that the United States has long- term designs on Iraq and its oil and deprives the Iraq Government of the incentives to resolve its internal divisions and stand on its own feet.

With the war in Iraq now in its fourth year, it is clear that the present course is not a strategy for success. It is a strategy for continued stalemate and stagnation.

As I said, stay the course means stay and pay. Stay and pay. One- third of a trillion dollars we have spent so far and counting.

Indeed, I fear that stay the course also means stay forever--and this sends exactly the wrong signal. It stokes the insurgents who believe that the U.S wants a permanent military presence in Iraq.

Don't think for a second that they do not know and they aren't putting out the word that the Republican leadership in the House 2 weeks ago stripped the language out of the Senate bill which stated that we were not going to have permanent bases and we will not control their oil. Don't think for a minute that they haven't broadcast that, that they aren't using that as a recruiting tool. Of course they are.

When President Bush says it will be through his administration and into his successor's administration before we decide what to do in Iraq, that is a powerful recruiting tool for the insurgents and the terrorists.

Our open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq as long as it takes has had the effect of taking away any incentive for the Iraqi Government to resolve its internal division and get its act together.

Parliamentary elections were held way back in early December. Has Baghdad descended into vicious sectarian violence? It took the Iraqis nearly 7 months to chose a prime minister and to fill all the ministries.

Now, as the Iraqis face a deadline for U.S redeployment, there is no way they would have squandered 6 months before forming a government, nor would the Iraqis be dragging their feet in standing up a viable, self-sustaining army and police force.

I just heard the Senator from Alabama quoting a general. A lot of generals have been quoted around here. I guess I can quote a general too. How about General Casey, our commander in Iraq, who told the Senate last September. He said:

Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of

occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security

forces on the coalition [and] extends the amount of time that

it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-

reliant.

Last September, General George Casey said that.

BG Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, put it this way:

I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is

to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be

settled . . . through military options or military

operations. It is going to be settled in the political

process.

Nor, I must add, is there a military solution to most of the critical problems confronting Iraq--sectarian strife, out-of-control crime, rampant corruption, widespread unemployment, chronic shortages of electricity and water and gasoline, and on and on. There is not a military solution to that; it is a political solution.

The Iraqi people also believe that a redeployment of U.S. forces would give a boost to the political process. According to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland, more than 80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq. When asked what the impact of a withdrawal of U.S. troops would be, large majorities of Iraqis believe that insurgent attacks will decrease, sectarian violence will decline, and the sectarian factions in Parliament will be more willing to cooperate. That is what a majority of Iraqis believe. Yet somehow this administration believes differently.

We all hope the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders are sincere in their stated desire to avoid an all-out civil war. Prime Minister Maliki has formed a national unity Cabinet. As I said, President Bush has hailed this new Government as a turning point. We hope that is the case. But whether or not Mr. Maliki is willing or able to make good on his pledges, it is certainly time for a turning point in U.S. policy in Iraq.

The coming months must be a period of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty. It is time to hand off security responsibilities to the Iraqi Army and police, to redeploy most of our U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq by the end of this year. This strategic redeployment must involve converting our vast military presence on the ground in Iraq to a quick reaction force, staged in countries bordering Iraq, countries that share our interest in a stable Iraq and that view our military presence in the region as a stabilizing force.

This substantial over-the-horizon force would be used to strike at al-Qaida and its affiliates whether in Iraq or elsewhere. These forces would be able to respond in a timely manner, as they did 2 weeks ago in targeting and killing Al-Zarqawi.

I would expect, as our troops withdraw from Iraq, this would free up U.S. forces to combat the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Other troops would be available to send to the emerging terrorist threats in countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, which threaten to become major breeding grounds for terrorists.

The harsh fact is that the Iraq war has led to a decline in the overall readiness of U.S. ground forces. It has decimated our capacity to put large numbers of boots on the ground were we to face an emergency elsewhere, such as on the Korean peninsula.

At a Senate hearing last year, GEN Richard A. Cody, Army vice chief of staff, said:

What keeps me awake at night is what will this all-

volunteer force look like in 2007?

He stated this in the context of a discussion about whether we could sustain

the operational tempo of deployments at the rate we have had since the beginning of the Iraq war. For all the military superiority we displayed in the invasion of March 2003, 3 years later, a guerilla conflict is grinding away at our military manpower and equipment.

We need to redeploy from Iraq in order to reset and reequip the force--ground forces in particular--so they are prepared for a more focused campaign against the terrorists who attacked us and continue to threaten us.

At the same time we are redeploying our Armed Forces, we need to foster sustained diplomatic engagement, working with Middle Eastern nations to facilitate rival Iraqi factions in reaching a political settlement. Iraq's neighbors have a profound stake in this stability, but they currently have no incentive to get involved. Once it is clear that the United States is leaving, those nations will be highly motivated to facilitate a coming together of the factions within Iraq.

Some say that U.S. forces in Iraq are the only thing that stands between the Sunnis, Shiites, the Kurds, and all-out civil war. I disagree. It is the ongoing presence of U.S. forces and the prospect that we will be in Iraq as a babysitter for years to come that has delayed progress on the political front. It is the ongoing presence of U.S forces and statements by this President that we will be there for as long as it takes, it is actions such as were taken by the House Republicans in stripping that language out we put in that said we are not going to have permanent bases, we are not going to control the world, it is those actions which have delayed progress on the political front and have given the insurgents the narrative, the story, the recruiting tool they need.

Our presence in Iraq is a propaganda victory and recruiting tool for the insurgency in Iraq and for Islamic extremists around the world. The insurgents and jihadists are threatened by the overwhelming perception in the Arab world that the U.S. military is an occupying force, that we are building what appears to be permanent bases, that our continuing presence in Iraq is all about controlling oil.

Meanwhile, let's be clear on what continuing our current policy of stay and pay will entail. The Congressional Research Service reports that we are now spending $6.4 billion a month in Iraq, up sharply from last year. That is $9 million an hour every hour of every day. And we are doing so at a time when our budget, the budget put through by the Republicans who control the Congress, is slashing funds for education, cancer research, health care, other essential needs at home. The budget this year will mean we have 1,100 fewer research grants from the National Institutes of Health than we had 3 years ago. That is the path we are on. We have spent a grand total of about $350 billion in Iraq.

As I have said, more than 2,500 troops have been killed, 18,000 wounded. More than 8,500 of the troops are wounded so seriously they were listed as wounded in action, not to return to duty. Are we going to stay and pay for another 3 years, spending another $300 billion, sacrificing more American troops, with more killed, more maimed and injured for life? Is that what we mean by supporting the troops? Is that what we mean, to stay more, with more killed, more maimed? Why in the world would we want to stay on a course that is so clearly counterproductive, so clearly a failure?

Last week, the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy Magazine released the results of their survey of more than 100 of America's top terrorism and national security experts from across the ideological spectrum. The results show fewer than 2 in 10 believe the United States is winning the war on terror; 87 percent believe the war in Iraq has had a negative impact on our national security. So 87 percent of the top 100 national security experts around America say Iraq has had a negative impact on our national security.

Last Thursday, the Department of Defense issued a highly partisan ``debate prep book,'' designed to help Republicans defend the war in Iraq. Likewise, the President and Vice President are staying the course with their endless happy-talk about progress in Iraq, about how democracy is on the march. But the facts on the ground tell a different story. I believe we should base our policy choices not on happy talk but on facts on the ground.

Clearly, by preemptively attacking Iraq, we have committed a major strategic error in the larger war against the terrorists who attacked us. Simply put, we took our eyes off the ball. We deferred our military and intelligence resources away from Afghanistan, away from the hunt for bin Laden. The consequences were plain to see. It is no coincidence today the Taliban has powerfully resurfaced in southern Afghanistan despite President Bush's claim on September 27, 2004, that ``the Taliban no longer is in existence.'' Say again? As fighting in Afghanistan has intensified over the past 3 months, the United States has conducted 340 airstrikes in Afghanistan, more than twice as many as the 160 airstrikes carried out in the war in Iraq during the same period.

Meanwhile, while we have been distracted in Iraq, al-Qaida-like Islamic fighters have retained control of the Somalia capital of Mogadishu and have dealt a major blow to our counterterrorism efforts in the horn of Africa. Nor is it a coincidence that Osama bin Laden is still at large, still directing al-Qaida operations, still encouraging jihadists around the world.

Nearly 5 years ago, before a joint session of Congress, President Bush pledged he would ``bring Bin Laden to justice or bring justice to bin Laden.'' That was 5 years ago. President Bush has done neither. Instead, he allowed bin Laden to escape and has gotten the U.S. military bogged down in a civil war in Iraq--a huge strategic gift not only to bin Laden but also to Iran. Not only has our open-ended Iraqi entanglement taken the heat off the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, it has given them a propaganda victory and, as I said, a major recruiting tool. The sooner we acknowledge the strategic blunder and take steps to reverse it and the sooner we redeploy our military and strategic assets to confront our real enemies, the better off we will be.

The resolution I introduced setting a firm timetable for redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq is about accelerating the emergence of Iraq as an independent nation willing to stand on its own feet. But it is also about the unity and security of the American people. This misbegotten, misguided, mismanaged war is dividing our Nation. I already mentioned how the President's top political strategist is planning to inflame passions in the war on Iraq in the months between now and the election. Again, I state, it is eerie, eerie how defenders of the Iraq policy, of our policy in Iraq are sounding exactly like defenders of Nixon's policies in Vietnam.

It is eerie how the defenders of Bush's policies in Iraq are sounding like the defenders of Nixon's policies in Vietnam in the early 1970s. Back in 1972, Nixon and his defenders were saying that we were winning the war, that we must stay the course. And guess what. They were saying we must not cut and run, that we must prop up the ``democratic government'' in Saigon, which was, of course, elected, as you know, by 80 percent of the people, and on and on and on.

I can remember a time when I sat in a room with a group of Congressmen in Saigon, listening to then-President Thieu tell us that we must stay in Vietnam and fight the communists there or we would be fighting them in the Philippines and in Japan and on our doorstep.

What do we hear now? We have to fight them over in Iraq or we will be fighting them here. Eerie, as I said. Eerie.

Quite frankly, I say today President Bush is saying almost the exact same things that Richard Nixon said, and he has no more credibility than Richard Nixon did.

Likewise, back in 1972, President Nixon and his supporters were arguing that withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. But as LTG William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, states in a current issue of Foreign Policy magazine--I want to quote him--

A rapid reversal of our current course in Iraq would

improve U.S. credibility around the world.

I am going to repeat that. LTG William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine, said:

A rapid reversal of our current course in Iraq would

improve U.S. credibility around the world.

General Odom went on to say:

[I]nvading Iraq was not in the interests of the United

States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For

Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam [and left Iran as

the strongest power in the Persian Gulf]. For al Qaeda, it

made it easier to kill Americans.

That is not me. That is LTG William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan.

Beyond dividing our country, our endless, open-ended presence in Iraq has distracted our Government from urgent priorities, as I have said, in health care, education, law enforcement, and even a smarter approach to the very real terrorist threats of today and tomorrow.

The men and women of our Armed Forces have sacrificed greatly. I don't know why it is that because they have sacrificed so greatly--and the fact is, the Commander in Chief told them what to do, and they did it. So what. So to honor them, to honor what they have done in Iraq, we stay longer? We sacrifice more of our young people? We have more who are maimed for life? To honor them, we drain the Treasury of more of our dollars from taxpayers? Is that what it means to support our troops? I don't think so. I do not believe so.

I believe to support our troops is to do exactly what LTG William Odom said: A rapid reversal of our current course in Iraq.

It is time to allow the political process to go forward in Iraq. It is time to give Iraqi politicians greater incentive to bridge their differences and take responsibility for their country's future.

It is time to bring home as many troops as possible, consistent with force protection requirements.

It is time to redeploy as many as necessary to successfully pursue and crush bin Laden and al-Qaida and to protect our vital interests around the world.

President Bush tells us to be patient. He says Iraq will become a flourishing democracy that will spread the flame of freedom across the entire Middle East. But, with due respect to President Bush and to Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, they have been consistently wrong--disastrously wrong--in all their predictions with regard to Iraq.

Before the invasion, Vice President Cheney said that Iraq had ``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Secretary Rumsfeld said he knew exactly where Saddam was storing his weapons of mass destruction. And, as I noted 3 long years ago, President Bush said that major combat operations were over, mission accomplished.

Many of President Bush's people assured us that the war would be self-financed thanks to Iraq's oil--Paul Wolfowitz.

Vice President Cheney said, more than a year ago, that the insurgency was ``in its last throes.''

Just yesterday, at the National Press Club, Vice President Cheney defended and repeated his claim that the insurgency is in its last throes.

I guess if you repeat something often enough--will people believe it? Listen to what Abraham Lincoln once said: You can fool some of the people all the time. You can fool all the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time.

Mr. Cheney, you may have fooled some people. The American people are not buying it any longer.

I could go on and on with this litany of false assertions--prediction after prediction that turned out to be 100 percent wrong.

There are those who say: But if we leave, there may be civil war in Iraq. As I have stated, I think the longer we stay, there will be more sectarian strife, more insurgency. But to be honest, I can't tell for sure what the likely outcome will be. How can anyone tell what the likely outcome will be, when we can't trust what the administration is telling us, when we can't trust, any longer, the intelligence as it is being given to us by the administration? We can't tell for sure.

So at this point, President Bush has not only spent his political capital, I think he has squandered the last shred of credibility when it comes to Iraq. Specifically, as I said, with regard to America's departure from Iraq, I think the President has it backwards. He says our Army will stand down only as the Iraqi Army stands up. The truth is that the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Government will stand up--make the hard political decisions--only when it is clear that the American military is committed to standing down by the end of this year.

So I repeat, I will vote in favor of both the Levin-Reed amendment and the Kerry-Feingold amendment. As I said, anything is better than what we have now, even though I think both could go further in setting a clear, decisive new direction. I stand by my conviction--and the wording in my resolution, the same as was introduced in the House by Representative Mike Thompson, with at least five if not six Republican cosponsors--that it is time to set a firm timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq and redoubling our fight against those who attacked us on September 11. Only this new course will produce the results we all want, both on the ground in Iraq and in the campaign against al-Qaida and rebuilding, reconstituting our forces and rebuilding and reuniting the people of our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman. Any time the chairman needs to interrupt my remarks to seek that agreement, I will be more than happy to yield the floor.

I wish to talk about an amendment I have not offered yet but I hope will be accepted by both sides. I will offer it, and I hope it will be acceptable. It has to do with the loss of some $8 billion for which we cannot account.

More than 3 years into the Iraq war, we have had report after report documenting rampant corruption and profiteering on the part of some defense contractors, as well as lax oversight by governmental officials. A major reason this is continuing largely unchecked is that apparently the Department of Justice has been delaying whistleblower lawsuits brought under the False Claims Act, and DOJ is not pursuing these suits aggressively. So I filed an amendment designed to break this logjam by requiring the Department of Justice to report on a semiannual basis, every 6 months----

Certainly.

Mr. President, 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member.

As I was saying, the amendment I filed is designed to break the logjam of what is happening at the Department of Justice delaying whistleblower lawsuits brought under the False Claims Act, and they are not pursuing these cases aggressively.

My amendment would require the Department of Justice to report on a semiannual basis on the status of its efforts to respond to whistleblower lawsuits alleging corruption in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The Department would be required to report its findings to the Judiciary Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

I believe this is an important first step that would allow Congress to evaluate the Department of Justice efforts so we can decide what further steps are needed to ensure these cases are vigorously prosecuted.

I am pleased that Senators Grassley, Dorgan, Durbin, Kennedy, Johnson, Wyden, Kerry, Lieberman, Leahy, and Lautenberg are cosponsoring this amendment.

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has risen dramatically in each of the last 3 years. The Congressional Research Service reports we are

now spending about $6.4 billion a month in Iraq alone. That is about $9 million an hour of spending in Iraq--$9 million an hour. One of the reasons for these runaway costs is the widespread corruption in the contracting process: shoddy work, nonwork, theft, fraud, kickbacks, bribes, insider dealings, inflated billings, and on and on.

There have been many reports in the press about this wave of corruption. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year about the problem. Our former inspector general in Baghdad, Stuart Bowen, concluded that U.S. occupation authorities accounted poorly for $8.8 billion in funds dedicated to Iraqi reconstruction from the Development Fund for Iraq. He stated this $8.8 billion is lost--lost. The Inspector General Stuart Bowen said, ``The Coalition Provisional Authority did not implement adequate financial controls.''

I ask unanimous consent that the April 19, 2006 article in the Wall Street Journal by Yochi J. Breazen be printed in the Record.

This has had an extremely negative impact on our work in Iraq. This fund was responsible for paying the salaries of hundreds of thousands of government employees, such as teachers, health workers, and government administrators; it supported the Iraqi defense and police forces; and it helped repair Iraq's dilapidated infrastructure. So the loss of $8.8 billion hurts our mission in Iraq.

There is real urgency to the spending issue. On Meet the Press recently, we heard from retired GEN Barry McCaffrey, who just returned from Iraq and who only last week advised the President and his national security team at the White House on the situation in Iraq. He spoke about the importance of spending our resources efficiently on Iraq economic reconstruction. General McCaffrey said:

Unemployment is a bigger problem than the Iraqi insurgent

force. We spent $18 billion on economic reconstruction. There

is only $1.6 billion left in the pipeline. When the money

runs out, in my judgment, we just lost the war.

But money on a massive scale--$8.8 billion, as the inspector general has said--has been ``lost into thin air.'' We can't account for it. While this was not all U.S. money, it symbolizes the magnitude of the corruption we are facing. We don't know where it has gone. Imagine the critical things we could have done with that $8.8 billion to help win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This chart shows what the Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund goes for. I won't read them all, but obviously security and law enforcement, the electric sector--they are getting less electricity now than they did before the war started-- oil infrastructure, water resources and sanitation, roads and bridges, health care, education; all of these things, $8.8 billion could have gone for, but it didn't go for that. Where did it go? Well, we just don't know.

The State Department's own numbers for this Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund tell us they believe a lot can be done with this amount of money. It could have paid for all of the security and law enforcement training. It could have paid for all of the electric sector programs. The waste of billions of dollars is bad enough, but the widespread corruption is impeding our war effort; it is slowing reconstruction efforts; it is denying our troops in the field the quality support and equipment they deserve.

Just imagine how we could have utilized $8.8 billion to help our military in the field. When our administration loses $8.8 billion that was to have gone for reconstruction, then we have to replace that money with our money. The reconstruction is taking place. If we don't restore the unaccounted for money, no other country will. So we have to appropriate U.S. taxpayer dollars to fill the void. Let me repeat that. By this loss of $8.8 billion, if we don't account for it and somehow recoup it, the reconstruction effort going forward will be made up by taxpayers' dollars, our taxpayers' dollars.

Aside from that, how could we have used $8.8 billion to support our own troops? Well, let's take a look at this. Here is the $8.8 billion that we have lost. Equipment maintenance, about $3.2 billion; billeting of soldiers, $2.4 billion; body armor, $1.9 billion; special pay for hostile fire pay, family separation allowances, hardship duty pay, $1.3 billion. All of it could have been done with the $8.8 billion that is lost. Let me repeat: $8.8 billion lost. It is not just a loss to our Treasury and the taxpayers, it is as well a loss to our ability to keep our own troops sustained.

The single most important legal tool that American taxpayers have to recover funds stolen through fraud by U.S. contractors is the False Claims Act. Indeed, thanks to this law, more than $17 billion has been recovered on behalf of the American taxpayer. Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers are given a powerful incentive to come forward and expose instances of fraud. The statute allows them to sue contractors suspected of defrauding the government, and then they can keep a portion of the recovered funds as a reward.

But there is a problem--a big problem. Scores of lawsuits have been brought against contractors suspected of fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, including--and I will have more to say about this in a minute--a Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown, & Root. Yet the Department of Justice has allowed only one of those suits to go forward in the courts, and that lawsuit resulted in a major recovery of fraudulently collected payments.

Given the massive amount of missing money, you would think that more than just one lawsuit has been filed against corporate contractors. To be sure, there are many more legitimate cases out there. Since 2003, the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction, the U.S. Army Audit Agency, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency have all uncovered contracting abuses related to the conflict in Iraq. Auditors of the Defense Contract Audit Agency have found that Halliburton has charged $1.4 billion in questionable and undocumented costs on just two contracts. The auditors found $813 million in questioned costs under Halliburton's Logistic Civil Augmentation Program contract to provide support services to the troops. So here are two, right here: $813 million in ``questioned costs'' on Halliburton's--what they call the LOGCAP contract, that is for Logistic Civil Augmentation Program; and $382 million in ``unsupported costs.'' That is $1.195 billion just to one company. That is Halliburton. That is Halliburton in ``questioned costs.''

The auditors at the agency challenged most of these costs as ``unreasonable in amount'' after completing the audit action because the costs ``exceeded that which would be incurred by a prudent person.'' The auditors also found an additional $442 million in Halliburton's charges are ``unsupported.'' As a result, Halliburton's total ``questioned'' and ``unsupported'' costs exceed $1.4 billion.

So if you look here at the audits of Halliburton's Iraq contracts, the ``questioned costs,'' the ``unsupported costs'' under these two contracts, LOGCAP and RIO, if you add them up, combined it is $1.47 billion.

What is being done about this? Nothing. Nothing. The Department of Justice is doing nothing.

There are numerous reports from former top Army contracting officials, from former DOD officials, from soldiers on the ground, and from former Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown & Root employees as to that company's waste,

fraud, and abuse--numerous reports. There are reports that Halliburton charged for meals never served, that Halliburton overcharged for oil and oil delivery, that Halliburton overcharged and double-charged for shipments of soda pop, that Halliburton overcharged on transportation contracts. I could go on and on.

But for reasons that I cannot fathom, the Department of Justice has not told Congress or the American taxpayer what it is doing to bring these cases to justice. And it seems as though nothing is being done.

I believe we have an obligation to the American taxpayer to be protected against theft or misuse of tax dollars by corrupt contractors. Yet there is no evidence the Justice Department is doing anything about it. So absent this information, I can only conclude that nothing is being done about this corruption. If this is the case, then the recovery of perhaps billions of dollars in taxpayer money is being blocked.

While Congress and the American taxpayer remain in the dark about what the Justice Department is doing to combat contract corruption, False Claims Act cases continue to languish. The way it works is that the False Claims Act cases are automatically sealed. They cannot go to trial; they cannot be publicly disclosed until the Department of Justice makes a decision of whether to join them. Under the statute, these decisions are supposed to be made within 60 days. However, the Department of Justice is allowed to seek additional time where needed. This is appropriate because a lot of times these cases are very complex and require extensive investigation. However, these extensions cannot be allowed to become a form of indefinite delay, stretching out year after year after year. And I fear that is exactly what is happening. As I said, with just one exception, the Department of Justice has refused to take a position on any of the lawsuits related to Iraq and Afghanistan, some of which were filed over 3 years ago. Instead, the Department files for and receives indefinite extensions.

As a result, as I said, with one exception, every single whistleblower lawsuit has been effectively blocked by the Department of Justice. Fraud has gone unpunished, billions of taxpayer dollars continue to be squandered, and courageous whistleblowers who have come forward, often at great personal risk, have been left in a sort of legal limbo. As one attorney representing a whistleblower put it:

The Bush administration has made a conscious decision to

sweep the cases under the rug for as long as possible. And

the more bad news that comes out of Iraq, the more motivation

they have to do so.

This situation is unacceptable. So my amendment would therefore require the Justice Department to report to Congress on a semiannual basis the efforts it is undertaking to ensure that it is investigating in a timely and appropriate manner all claims of contractor waste, fraud, and abuse related to the U.S. Government's activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would require the Department of Justice to report on similar executive branch interagency efforts. My amendment would prevent the Department of Justice from imposing undue secrecy on false claims civil actions related to Government spending in Iraq and Afghanistan by simply requiring the Department of Justice to tell Congress what it is doing to combat this corruption. Sharing this information with Congress is nothing out of the ordinary, but it is long past due. As a matter of good faith to our troops and to the American taxpayer, we need to move aggressively against corruption and war profiteering in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. These cases have gone on too long.

In closing, I quote the British philosopher John Stuart Mill who said: ``The proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government.''

Mr. President, hopefully this is a nonpartisan amendment. It is all about enabling Congress to provide meaningful oversight of executive branch activity consistent with our duty to do so under the Constitution and the law. It will enable Congress to know the administration's plans for rooting out contractor corruption in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I am here to speak on the minimum wage amendment.

Are we going off of that?

OK.

Mr. President, last March in the bankruptcy reform bill, the Senate debated the minimum wage with Senator Kennedy offering an amendment to increase the minimum wage over a 2-year period to $7.25. That amendment failed on a largely party-line vote, 46 to 49. Again, last October, another Kennedy amendment to increase the minimum wage over a 2-year period, to $6.25, again failed on a largely party-line vote, 47 to 48.

Both votes ignored the fact that 37 million Americans, many holding down full-time jobs, are living in poverty.

Here we are again. This week we again debate an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy, me, and many others, to increase the minimum wage. I hope this time the outcome will be different. Indeed, with 37 million Americans living in poverty, almost 13 percent of our population, we have to have a different outcome. We have to raise the minimum wage.

Poverty is increasing sharply among the working poor. The new Census Bureau numbers show over the last year alone, the number of Americans who work but live in poverty increased by 563,000. The number of Americans who work but live in poverty increased by half a million.

A job ought to lift people out of poverty not keep them in poverty. But that is what we have today--more and more Americans working, yet more and more Americans falling into poverty who are working. A job ought to lift you out of poverty. It offends our basic sense of fairness to know there are many Americans who work full time, play by the rules, and still live in poverty.

Millions of Americans find themselves doing this, including 13 million children. That is why it is absurd, beyond reason, hard to explain to the average person why the minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for the last 9 years.

How would any Senator like to have the same salary that he or she got 9 years ago? Seven times in the last 9 years we have raised our salaries. We have adjusted upward to account for the increased cost of living. Yes, over the same time, we have callously allowed the income of workers earning the minimum wage to languish, lose value every year, as inflation has gone up and they stay the same. It is incredible we would raise our salaries seven

times in 9 years and never raise the minimum wage.

The amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and me and others to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 is, as I said, long overdue. Prior to last March, it had been 5 years since we last had a vote on the minimum wage. It has now been 9 years since we last raised the minimum wage.

To have the same purchasing power, for example, if we took the year 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be more than $9.26 an hour. Minimum wage workers earn a paltry $10,712 a year total, almost $16,600 below the Federal poverty guidelines for a family of three.

This chart shows the salary of a full-time minimum wage worker to be $10,712. The average family health care premium in 2005 was $10,880. Right now, 35 percent of minimum wage workers in America are the sole support of their families. These are not just teenagers. Some may be teenagers; more often than not it is a single, working mother. They can work hard all year at the minimum wage--and they do work hard, if you have ever seen anyone do that kind of work--and they cannot even buy a health care premium.

As I said, the salary for full-time minimum wage workers is $10,712; the average cost of a health care premium, $10,880. They could not even afford to buy health care, let alone pay rent, buy food, pay for heating, buy gas for the car to get back and forth to work.

As I said, there is a lot of misperception about who gets the minimum wage. We hear it is teenagers, part-time workers flipping hamburgers. Here are the facts: 35 percent earning the minimum wage are the sole breadwinners of their families; 61 percent are women; almost a third of those women are raising children; 76 percent of the women who would directly benefit from an increase are over the age of 20. Among families with children, and a low-wage worker who would be affected by an increase, the affected worker contributes half of the family's earnings. Those are the facts.

A decent minimum wage is critical to moving people from welfare to work. I thought that is what we wanted to do. Since the Clinton Welfare-to-Work Program in 1996, we reduced the number of welfare cases by half. But so many of the people who moved off of welfare did not move out of poverty. Why? Because at the current minimum wage, it is not a living wage, it is a poverty wage.

An increase to $7.25 would make a dramatic difference. It would add $4,370 in income. That is real value to a family living in poverty. Nearly 7.5 million workers would benefit from a minimum wage increase. In my home State of Iowa, 87,500 workers would benefit from the increase, more than 6 percent of our workforce.

In urging the passage of the first minimum wage legislation, President Franklin Roosevelt once said:

No business which depends for existence on paying less than

living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this

country.

Imagine that. He went on to say:

By living wages, I mean more than bare subsistence levels.

I mean the wages of a decent living.

He had it right. We can do it better. Gas prices are up 70 percent, health insurance is up 33 percent, college tuition is up 35 percent, housing is up 36 percent, and wages are up 1 percent. Minimum wage is up nothing, not even 1 percent.

During the same period, private sector executive salaries have risen dramatically. Right now, the average CEO in America makes $11.8 million a year--the average worker is earning $27,460 a year--431 times what the average worker makes. Imagine being a minimum wage worker making $10,000.

As long as I get the floor back.

Mr. President, the average CEO in America today makes $11.8 million a year. The average salaried worker makes $27,460 a year. That is 431 times what the average worker makes. That is the average worker. Take a minimum wage worker at $10,600 a year. The average CEO makes a thousand times more a year, a thousand times more than a minimum wage worker. So you can see the disparity has gotten out of hand.

In the wake of Katrina, in a speech in New Orleans, President Bush proclaimed:

We should confront poverty with bold action.

We are just trying to raise the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years, and we can't even do that. We can have tax reductions for the wealthy on and on and on; they seem to be sacrosanct, untouchable; but we can't raise the minimum wage. The working poor have to do with $5.15 an hour. This is unconscionable. We have to do something about it.

Have Members of the Senate all joined the Neiman Marcus crowd? Have we become so totally insulated from the realities of real life for the people who work and shop at Wal-Mart and K-Mart, Dollar stores, who pinch their pennies, who go to the grocery store and spend the time looking for the best bargains, have we become so insulated from them that we can't see the need to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour?

Poverty has doubled since the late 1970s among full-time, year-round workers from about 1.3 million to more than 2.6 million. Every day the minimum wage is not increased, it continues to lose value and workers fall further and further behind.

Here is what is happening today. That is why I say there is a misery index out there, a working class misery index. This shows it. Productivity keeps going up. People are working longer, working harder. They are producing more. Productivity is up 166 percent since 1960. Look what has happened to the real minimum wage. It is down 23 percent.

This is what the average person feels: My gas prices have gone up. My rent has gone up. I can never afford to send my kid to college. College tuition has gone up. Health care premiums are skyrocketing. I am working harder, longer. I am producing more, and I am getting less. That is what I call a working class misery index in America. And what have we done? We raised our salaries 7 times in the last 9 years. We have tax break after tax break after tax break for the privileged few in America.

Just a couple weeks ago there was an attempt on the floor to completely wipe out the estate tax, estate taxes paid by only 3 families out of every 1,000 in America. Three out of every 1,000 families pay any estate taxes. They are the wealthiest in our country. We had an amendment to the bill by the other side to completely eliminate it. Thankfully, we didn't do that.

But now when we want to raise the minimum wage just a paltry two dollars and something cents an hour, we can't do that? Where is the fairness? Where is the fairness for the American worker? No wonder the average American's esteem of Congress has gone down--along, I might add, with the President's, because the President is not up here asking for a minimum wage increase either.

No wonder people don't think we are doing anything. We raise our salaries 7 times in 9 years. We have tax breaks for the wealthy. We have tax breaks for big business. We want to do away with estate taxes for the wealthiest few. But we won't raise the minimum wage.

It all leads us to conclude that when it comes to the issues of poverty and the working poor, the American public should watch what we do, not what we say.

I will bet every Senator here can give wonderful talks about work, the value of work and more jobs and creating jobs and the economy is up and isn't everything wonderful. Yes, if you are a CEO, it is wonderful. If you are a CEO, it is pretty darn nice. If you are making $150,000, $160,000 a year, $170,000, as we are here, things are pretty nice. But if you are a minimum wage worker, things aren't very pretty. Things aren't pretty at all. You are not saving anything. You are barely able to scrape by. Your kids are probably not getting the best food and nutrition. They are probably not going to be able to manage to go to college. You don't have health care so you go to the emergency room when you get sick so you don't have any preventative care. Your kids are probably not getting the vaccinations and the checkups they need. They are probably not getting the dental care they need.

I am not talking about ``poor people living in poverty who aren't working.''

I am talking about poor people who go to work every single day. You see them. We all see them. We all see them. You go into stores and see the people working behind the counters. Check on the people who are working in day-care centers, people in Head Start centers, people cleaning houses, cleaning our office buildings. Yes, and a lot of people are working, flipping burgers and stuff like that, making the minimum wage. But they are the sole breadwinner of their family.

We see them every day and yet we pass by, we just pass on by. Let's not pass on by here. Let's stop and think, act accordingly, and reach down and say to those people who are working hard every day that it is time to give you a raise, too--not just corporate CEOs or Members of Congress, but let's give at least a $2.10 increase to the people who make the minimum wage. It will be good for American workers and for our economy. It is long overdue, and it is the right thing to do.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joel Rubin of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of S. 2766, the Defense authorization legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Zachary Schechter-Steinberg of my staff be granted floor privileges during the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, last Sunday marked the 10th anniversary of Senator Bob Dole's retirement from the Senate. Bob Dole served the people of Kansas and the people of the United States of America as a Member of Congress for more than three and a half decades. He was outspoken on many issues, but, above all, I will always admire his tireless, passionate advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities.

The first speech that Bob Dole ever made on the floor of the Senate-- on April 14, 1969--was about the challenges faced by Americans with disabilities. That date was the 24th anniversary of the day he was gravely wounded in

World War II. In fact, every year that he was in the Senate, on or about April 14, Bob Dole made a statement on the floor about the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities. But Bob Dole did much more than just talk about expanding access and opportunity for people with disabilities. He was an outstanding leader in bringing about change for the good.

Most importantly, I will always be grateful for Senator Bob Dole's leadership in helping to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. Both he and I remember the day that it was signed into law as one of the proudest in our entire legislative careers.

It is hard to believe, but it has been nearly 16 years since we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Just as many predicted, ADA has taken its place among the great civil rights laws in our Nation's history. Today, the impacts of ADA are all around us. Drive-through restaurants have visual displays allowing the deaf and hard of hearing to place their orders. Banks have talking ATMs, now, to assist those with visual impairments. Cities have installed curb cuts and ramps to allow wheelchair users easier access. And on and on. Just as important, because of ADA, we have seen an enormous change in attitudes. These changes that we see today, that we feel today, would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of Senator Bob Dole in working cooperatively to help get the ADA passed.

On a bipartisan basis, we miss Bob Dole here in this body. But the good news is that there is still a Senator Dole in the Senate, and our friend Bob has found a richly satisfying life after the Senate. Today, he continues to serve the American people in a whole range of voluntary capacities, proving President Reagan's dictum that ``you don't have to be on the public payroll to be an outstanding public servant.'' I salute my good friend, Bob Dole, and I wish him all the best.

Mr. President, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, our friend Robert Byrd, has achieved yet another historic milestone. He is now the longest-serving Senator in the history of the Senate. But what is most remarkable about Senator Byrd is not his longevity, but his unique stature and accomplishment within this body.

Senator Byrd is renowned for his unmatched knowledge of the Senate's history. So he remembers very well that our former colleague, Philip Hart of Michigan, was known as the ``conscience of the Senate.'' Well, I believe that history will remember the senior Senator from West Virginia as the soul of the Senate.

No individual in my memory has been a more tenacious champion of the traditions, prerogatives, and rules of this body. No individual has had greater reverence for the Constitution, and for the Founders' vision of an assertive, independent, co-equal legislative branch. As the Almanac of Americans says in its profile of Senator Byrd, and I quote, he ``may come closer to the kind of Senator that the Founding Fathers had in mind than any other.'' By the way, if anyone here on the Senate floor needs to look something up in the Constitution, we know where to turn; Senator Byrd always carries a copy in his left breast pocket, directly over his heart.

I have always had a special affinity for Senator Byrd, because we are both the sons of coal miners, both raised in humble circumstances. Reading about the Senator's early years, lifting himself out of poverty as a welder and meat cutter before running for the West Virginia Legislature in 1946, I am reminded of Thomas Edison's remark that ``opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.'' Well, Robert Byrd made his own opportunities with relentless work, self-education, and striving. And that incredible work ethic continues right up to this day.

One product of that work ethic, and of Senator Byrd's always impressive erudition, is his two-volume history of this body. It is recognized as the definitive history of the Senate during its first 200 years, and widely praised for its graceful writing. On this score, Senator Byrd has much in common with Winston Churchill. Both were prolific writers. And both were major players in the events that they chronicled.

On a personal note, let me just say that I have always valued Senator Byrd's friendship, wisdom, and advice. And I will always appreciate the way he tutored me in the ways of the Senate when I first came to this body in 1984.

So I join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in saluting our friend. Senator Byrd is the longest-serving Member of this body. But there are still many chapters yet to be written in the career of this great Senator. As the late Senator Paul Wellstone used to say, ``The future belongs to those with passion.'' By that standard, Senator Byrd is very much a man of the future.

I say to my friend, it has been an honor to serve with him.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we under an order right now with a time limit? I have the floor, but I would like to know how much time I am allotted.

Fifteen minutes?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to say I have a great friendship with, a liking of, and respect for the chairman of our committee, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. It is always a tough job when you are bringing an appropriations bill out on the floor, especially a supplemental. And I respect the effort that has gone into this. However, I must say that there are a lot of things that I find very, very problematic about this appropriations bill.

Again, there are some critical provisions included in this bill. There is funding for our Nation to prepare for a possible avian flu pandemic. Obviously, there is funding for our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we want to support them in every way, with the equipment they need to maximize their safety. There is also funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace democracy-building activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. So there are things in here that are very necessary that we must provide.

On the other hand, however, there are some very disturbing and I think sort of ominous precedent-setting things that are in this bill that could lead to some real problems down the road.

I am extremely disappointed this bill includes a deeming resolution for the budget. First of all, it should not be in here. Now, I tried to explain a deeming resolution to one of my constituents the other day. Try to explain it to someone. Try to explain it to someone who is not sort of in this body--a ``deeming'' resolution. You see, we pass a budget, but then the budget cannot get passed by the House, so, therefore, we then are going to pass a deeming resolution to deem something that we cannot pass as passed because we deem it passed.

Now, just try explaining that to the average citizen of this country. They would think we have lost all our marbles in trying to do something like this. I am hopeful we will reach some point in the Senate and the House where this is absolutely forbidden in the future: putting something like a deeming resolution on an emergency supplemental.

Now, we want to pass an emergency supplemental for the reasons I just mentioned, but then to have to swallow something which makes no sense whatsoever and which, quite frankly, is harmful and which the Senate rejected before flies in the face of what I think is legitimate legislative activity.

So the Senate voted 2 months ago overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment that Senator Specter and I offered--bipartisan--to add $7 billion to the President's budget. The Senate voted 73 to 27. That is a pretty overwhelming vote around here: 73 to 27. The aim was clear: to allow Congress to fund our education, health, human services, and labor bill. And it was not an increase but just to fund it at the same level as in fiscal year 2005, 2 years ago. It was not radical. We were not asking for a lot, not asking for the keys to the Treasury.

We said: Let's just spend the same amount of money we did 2 years ago, not even accounting for inflation.

The Senate said: Let's stop cutting the programs that support working families, people with disabilities, and students who cannot afford college. Let's end the cuts to research on cancer and other diseases.

Seventy-three Senators agreed. They voted that way. Then the Senate reconfirmed its position in conference. When this deeming resolution was proposed, Senator Byrd offered an amendment that proposed the same thing as what we passed in the Senate--the Specter-Harkin amendment. Again, a majority of the Senate conferees voted to add the $7 billion. Two times the Senate demanded this additional funding for health, education, and labor programs, and human services.

Now, where is the $7 billion? Where did it go? It just vanished-- vanished. It is gone. The deeming resolution--again, try explaining that to someone, to the average person. The deeming resolution that is in this bill is at exactly the same level as the President's budget, which we rejected in the Senate 2 months ago.

So what happened? The conferees from the majority party went behind closed doors and stripped out the $7 billion. It is as if the 73-to-27 vote in the Senate never even happened.

So what does this mean? What is the impact? Well, let's look at what happens. Under this now, the President's budget will cut funding for cancer research by $40 million. Eighteen of the 19 National Institutes of Health will face reductions.

This deeming resolution will now cut Social Services Block Grants by $500 million. It completely eliminates the Community Services Block Grant program. These are the two biggest discretionary programs for the poor. They are kind of the glue that holds the human services delivery system together.

The number of children served by Head Start will be reduced. The Meals on Wheels Program will be cut.

In education, this deeming resolution, now following the President's budget, will have the largest cut to Federal education in 26 years. The No Child Left Behind Act will be underfunded by $15.4 billion. Title I, serving our most needy children in school, will be frozen at last year's level.

I could go on and on, but this is what we mean by passing a deeming resolution on the supplemental.

At a time when Congress has just passed an additional $70 billion in tax cuts, mostly for the wealthiest in our country--and we had an effort a week ago to eliminate estate taxes, but, fortunately, we stopped it. But I hear it may come back, another tax cut that will benefit only 3 families out of every 1,000 families in America. We are going to have another attempt, and that will cost us, I understand, a half trillion dollars over 10 years. And it will go only to the wealthiest in our society. Yet we are going to cut Meals on Wheels, Head Start, cut education, title I, eliminate Community Services Block Grants, cut funding for the National Institutes of Health.

What is going on here? Have we taken leave of our senses? This deeming resolution, as I said, was not in the House bill, and it was not in the Senate bill. There is a rule. We are supposed to

live by rules in our society. We have laws. People obey laws. We have rules to live by so we know what the game is, so we know what we are expected to do.

We have a rule that says anything that is added in conference that was not in either bill is subject to a point of order. A point of order now lies on this floor against this bill.

Now, why isn't anyone raising the point of order? Well, I am told that the point of order will not be raised because the Chair, you see, will have to agree with the point of order that this violates rule XXVIII; therefore, the whole bill then falls.

What does that mean? Why, it means they would have to go back to conference and strip out the deeming resolution. That might take a couple of hours. Then it would come back, and then we would have a supplemental appropriations without this ``deeming resolution.''

So why isn't rule XXVIII being invoked? Why aren't we raising the point of order? I understand that what would happen is the Chair would uphold the point of order, the majority party would move to override the ruling of the Chair--and that takes 51 votes--and I am told the majority party would have the 51 votes to override the ruling of the Chair, and that would do away, basically, with rule XXVIII.

Well, what is so wrong with that? What is the good of having a rule if you do not abide by the rules? I am reminded of one of my favorite lines from ``Finnegan's Rainbow.'' It is a play. It goes like this: For life is like cricket. We play by the rules. But the secret which few people know that keeps men of class far apart from the fools is to make up the rules as you go.

That is what we are doing around here. We are making up the rules as we go. You never know from one year to the next what the rules are going to be. The rules are only what the majority party deems the rules ought to be at any given point in time. That is no way to run a democracy. It is no way to run a legislative chamber. It is no way to run the Congress.

So we have this threat: If you raise a point of order--which should be raised--that whole rule falls. I question whether the rule is even worth having any longer.

A couple of other notes.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. President, let me just note that upon the passage of this supplemental appropriations bill, Congress will have provided over $318 billion for the war in Iraq--almost all of it through emergency supplemental appropriations.

Now, again, we must support our troops. They have no control over how their operations and equipment are funded. So we want to support them. But I have grave concerns about the way the Bush administration has gone about funding the war--only through emergency supplemental appropriations.

The war in Iraq has gone on for 3 years now. There have been eight separate emergency supplemental appropriations measures to fund our operations in Iraq.

This is how an emergency is defined by our own budget rules: ``Suddenly, quickly coming into being . . . not building over time . . . an urgent, pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action . . . unforeseen, unpredictable and unanticipated and not permanent.''

That is how our budget rules define ``emergency appropriations.'' Three years? War in Iraq? It is unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated, sudden? Wait a minute, this does not meet the definition of ``emergency.'' It is not unforeseen.

Why isn't the President sending us, then, a regular budget at the beginning of the year to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because they do not want to admit how much money they are spending there. They want to mask it.

I am going to support this bill. I will vote for it because it has some things in it and because I want to make sure our troops have the equipment. But I want to go on record as saying I also have a resolution that I introduced in the Senate that says three things. It says: No. 1, we will not establish permanent bases in Iraq; No. 2, we will not seek to control the oil in Iraq; and, No. 3, that we ought to begin redeploying our troops out of Iraq by the end of this year.

So this may be the last time I will vote for any appropriations for the Iraq war, because I believe we should start withdrawing and redeploying our troops by the end of this year. I want to give them everything they need for their safety and their well-being, but enough is enough. And I also want to make it clear that this may be the last time I will ever vote for an emergency supplemental appropriation for the war in Iraq.

If it comes to the regular appropriations process, we will have our hearings. We will see what is happening. But under an emergency, we don't do that. The war in Iraq, we were told by Mr. Wolfowitz before it started, would be paid for by oil; the cost to the American people would be minimal. That is what Secretary Rumsfeld told us. We are up to $318 billion and counting. It is time that Secretary Rumsfeld and this administration start making some tough decisions about what they can cut out of the Pentagon's bloated annual budget in order to fund the war in Iraq.

Quite frankly, we know there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse going on in Iraq. It has to end. As long as we keep having emergency supplemental appropriations, we will never eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse.

We all strongly support our troops. I will vote for this bill because it contains funding for the troops, for avian flu, and other items, but it is time that the war in Iraq only comes through the regular appropriations process. It is time for us to start getting our troops out of there by the end of this year.

Mr. President, may I ask what the unanimous consent request was? I couldn't hear.

I reserve the right, only if I could ask that the same 15 minutes be allotted to the ranking member of our Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ipar Demir be granted floor privileges during the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, yesterday was the annual commemoration of the International Labor Organization's, ILO, World Day Against Child Labor, the day we set aside to speak out against the fact that millions of children around the globe continue to be trapped in forced and abusive labor, often in extremely hazardous conditions.

The good news, this year, is that child labor is in decline across the globe. According to the recent ILO report, ``The End of Child Labor: Within Reach,'' released on May 4 of this year, between the years 2000 and 2004, the number of child laborers worldwide fell by 11 percent, from 246 million to 218 million. Even better, the number of children and youths aged 5-17 trapped in hazardous work decreased by 26 percent, declining from 171 million in 2000 to 126 million in 2004. Among younger child laborers, the drop was even sharper at 33 percent.

This is remarkable progress in just 4 years' time. And looking to the future, the ILO report cautiously predicts that, ``if the current pace of decline is maintained, and if global efforts to stop child labor continue.'' We have a real opportunity to eliminate child labor in its worst forms within 10 years' time. However, difficult challenges lie ahead, especially in agriculture, where 7 out of 10 child laborers work. I know this firsthand from my work trying to end child labor in the cocoa industry. Child labor is deeply entrenched in cocoa plantations in Ivory Coast and elsewhere. But, with the cooperation of the chocolate industry, we are making progress in fighting it.

Likewise, in the broader fight against child labor, the ILO report verifies that we are on the right track to eliminating abusive and exploitative child labor. The great work of the ILO's International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor, IPEC, really vindicates the confidence I placed in this program early on. I secured the first Federal appropriation for the IPEC program back in 1996, and over the last decade, I have secured a total of more than $323 million for the program. Clearly, that money has made a

real difference in the lives of children. It has given them an opportunity to get an education and to break the cycle of poverty.

In August 2005, I visited Pakistan and spent time at an IPEC program funded by the U.S. Department of Labor to combat child labor in the Pakistani carpet industry. I was able to sit down and talk with young adults who had been laborers in the carpet industry as children but had been removed and given the opportunity to go to school. In Pakistan, the Department of Labor's international child labor program has helped to ensure that 20,000 children between the ages of 10-18 have been removed from hazardous work conditions and provided with either nonformal education or vocational training. I have also visited child labor rehabilitation programs in Brazil, Nepal, and Bangladesh. These visits have showed me the incredibly beneficial impacts that governments can make, but I also realize that industry partnerships are essential to the real eradication of child labor.

Although there has been a tremendous amount of progress in ending child labor, now is not the time to become complacent. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of children are still forced to work illegally for little or no pay. Economic development alone is not enough, and we must focus on human rights and educational opportunities for those in poverty. Social change must go hand in hand with economic development, which requires workers' and employers' organizations. Our keys to success will be mainstreaming child labor efforts with other human rights and development goals, as well as getting national governments, NGOs, and international organizations all working cooperatively to end child poverty.

We should not think about these children only on June 12 each year. We should think about this last vestige of slavery 365 days a year. I have remained steadfast in my commitment to eliminating abusive and exploitative child labor. It was in 1992 that I first introduced a bill to ban all products made by abusive and exploitative child labor from entering the United States. In my view, we can make significant progress to eliminate this scourge if we all do our part and redouble our efforts. This means that governments must not merely pass laws but enforce them, while also striving to provide quality, free education. Businesses must take responsibility, as well, by not hiring children, and by paying adults livable wages so they can provide for their families. Multilateral institutions must also play a robust role. Together, we can eliminate the worst forms of child labor by 2016.

Madam President, I am dumbfounded that the Senate is debating yet another gigantic tax break for the wealthiest people in our society. The Republicans are pushing this latest giveaway despite the fact that we are facing a deficit, this year, in excess of $300 billion a year, despite the fact that they have run up $2 trillion in new debt since President Bush took office, despite the fact that they have increased spending by 25 percent in just 5 years' time, and despite the fact that we are spending $10 billion a month on seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The level of irresponsibility is just breathtaking. This is a tax break we cannot afford, benefitting people who don't need it. Currently, the estate tax impacts far less than 1 percent of the wealthiest families in America. And you can be sure that these are not families facing economic hardship or struggling to make ends meet.

Repeal of the estate tax would not create a single new job. It would do nothing to increase productivity or competitiveness. It would do nothing to improve the education of our children or the general well- being of the American people. No, this is a pure and simple giveaway--a bonanza for those who have already received the lion's share of the tax breaks passed over the last 5 years.

And let's be clear: There is nothing conservative about handing out tax breaks costing nearly $1 trillion, including interest, over 10 years and passing the bill to our children and grandchildren.

In his State of the Union speech 3 years ago, President Bush made this statement: ``We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations.'' But that is exactly what repeal of the estate tax would do. It would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the already- massive debt that President Bush is passing on to ``other generations.'' This is not only irresponsible and reckless; it is just plain shameful.

Average family farmers are being told that they need repeal of the estate tax to save them from a large burden, perhaps losing their farm to pay the tax. But this is pure propaganda. It is simply not true.

The Congressional Budget Office analysis of estate tax returns from the year 2000 showed a very different picture. It showed that if we provide a $2 million exemption, $4 million for a married couple, which is the law for this year, only 123 farm-dominated estates would have had to pay any estate tax. That is a mere 123 farm-dominated estates in the entire United States. The details of the study note that, of those farm-dominated estates, only 15--15 in the entire United States--would not have sufficient liquidity to pay the tax. Only those 15 might have to sell land--though I doubt it. Large farm operations have a range of financial options to fall back on. Moreover, as a Washington Post editorial pointed out yesterday, family farm and business estate ``heirs can spread estate tax payments over 14 years, so even those without liquid assets have plenty of time to take over the farm or firm, manage it productively, and thus generate the cash to pay the tax.''

Neal Harl, one of the Nation's most respected lawyers and agricultural economists, knows of no instance where a farm has had to be sold because of the estate tax. Iowa Farm groups supporting estate tax repeal have not been able to identify even one instance, so far as I am aware.

There are, indeed, some family-business-dominated estates that would have to pay some estate tax. According to the Congressional Budget Office, at the current level of exemption, there are 135 estates. Only 135 estates in the entire Nation. So why is the Senate wasting precious legislative days addressing an issue affecting only 135 estates?

There is little question that the great majority of Senators-- including myself and many other Democrats--would be in favor of passing a reasonable compromise, for example a permanent exemption of at least a $2 million for an individual, $4 million for a couple that is the current exemption.

Of course, I don't want to minimize or dismiss those few instances where real farmers and small business people might have difficulty paying the tax. I do believe that it should be possible to pass family farms and family businesses from one generation to the next. Bear in mind, however, that we have had substantial estate taxes for a long time. And, the reality is that many of those who face the current tax had parents who passed on those same businesses with higher rates than they face today.

There is little question that the great majority of Senators-- including myself and many other Democrats--would be in favor of passing a reasonable compromise, for example a permanent exemption of at least a $2 million for an individual, $4 million for a couple. But I challenge my Republican colleagues to tell us how they intend to make up for the revenue that would be lost if a full repeal of the estate tax is passed. The difference between a $2 million exemption and full repeal is about a half trillion in the decade after 2011. How do the Republicans propose to offset that lost revenue? What do they propose to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Education? National defense? What other taxes would they increase? Or do they intend to simply pass on another half trillion in debt to our children and grandchildren?

Based on the record of the last 5 years, the most likely option is that the debt would simply be passed on to future generations. Since President Bush took office, we have already piled up nearly $2 trillion in new debt.

It is hard to believe, but just 6 years ago, before President Bush took office, we were running huge budget surpluses. We faced the very real prospect

of completely eliminating the national debt within the decade. But those bright prospects have been squandered in reckless tax cuts and out-of-control spending. We are now running record deficits. The debt tax will rise from about $600 for every man, woman, and child in America in recent years to more than $1,000 per person in 2010 according to the President's most recent budget submission.

How in the world can any responsible person who cares about the fiscal health of our Nation allow this to happen? How can anyone who believes in maintaining a ladder of economic opportunity for future generations--how can we instead saddle those future generations with a debt burden of this magnitude?

As President Kennedy said, ``to govern is to choose.'' If you vote to support this estate tax repeal, who exactly are you choosing to help? Well, according to Congress Watch, and United for a Fair Economy, just 18 families are in the forefront of those demanding this repeal. Those 18 families, with over $180 billion in accumulated wealth, stand to gain more than $70 billion in reduced taxes in the coming years if the estate tax is repealed. They have been spending huge sums for lobbyists and media campaigns. And if they succeed in avoiding paying $70 billion in taxes, then who will get stuck with the bill?

Of those 18 families, the biggest single beneficiary of full repeal would be the Walton family, which owns a lion's share of Wal-Mart. That one family may save as much as $30 billion.

I reject that choice. I reject giving away another half trillion dollars in tax breaks to those who have already been showered with fabulous wealth and good fortune. If we are going to pass new tax breaks, let's focus on working Americans who actually need them, beginning with working parents struggling to raise their children and pay college tuition.

Last month, I met with Warren Buffet, a multibillionaire and a very savvy judge of the economy and business. He said that he is working to shift some of his investments away from the dollar. He believes that the estate tax is good public policy, and he believes that a Nation that recklessly cuts taxes while racking up huge budget and trade deficits is heading for big, big trouble.

We need to come to our senses. Let's freeze the tax where it is, or let's consider a somewhat higher exemption, perhaps $4 million per couple. But let's reject the notion that huge estates should be passed on at a tax rate lower than what hard-working people pay on their earned income.

In any case, it is unacceptable that we on the minority side of the aisle are being denied an opportunity to propose reasonable compromise alternatives. We should not move to consider this bill until we have an agreement that Senators can have an open debate, with amendments offered and voted on by each side. And if we cannot receive such a guarantee, we should vote to reject cloture.

Madam President, this bill to repeal the estate tax would give away a half trillion dollars, as compared to the law for this year. It would give away money we don't have, overwhelmingly to people who don't need it, and it would pass the resulting debt to people who haven't even been born yet. This bill, in its current form, is reckless and irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture. This bill certainly shouldn't go forward until we have a fair, balanced proposal allowing amendments to the bill.