Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I rise today to speak again on the mishandling of the debate over the Iraq war resolutions. This debate has ramifications which will damage the institution of the Senate and lower the morale of our troops. Here is the truth the American people need to know: Republicans in the Senate have not prevented any debate over the war in Iraq. We are debating the war again today. We have debated the war in the past. And we will continue to debate the war in the future. What we have prevented is the majority leader dictating to the minority exactly which resolutions we will vote on. My friends on the other side of the aisle have misled the American people about this debate. Our Republican leader, my colleague and close friend from Kentucky, has tried to negotiate for more--I repeat--more debate on additional resolutions expressing a broad range of viewpoints. This is the U.S. Senate. The majority cannot tell the minority we are going to have one vote--take it or leave it. And let me be clear: I am not running from a vote on any of these resolutions. I don't know one of my Republican colleagues who is afraid to cast a vote on any of the proposed resolutions relating to Iraq. I have said repeatedly and I will say it here again today: Nonbinding resolutions that question military strategy are not in the best interests of our Nation. They are not in the best interests of the Senate. They don't have the effect of law. They only affect our soldiers by sending them mixed signals. But if we must go down that path, let's vote. However, the majority leader cannot dictate the terms of the vote. If he could, this would be the House of Representatives. But it is not. This is the U.S. Senate. This is a body with rules that encourage opposing viewpoints, not stifling debate by the majority leader hand-selecting one resolution and forcing the other 99 of us to vote on it. But here we are. Americans are watching this discussion right now. And it is not just a debate about Senate floor procedures; this is about how we as Senators should conduct debate when we have troops in harm's way. Many Americans oppose our efforts in Iraq. That is their right. I respect their convictions. Yet they are misguided, because I believe the cost of failure in Iraq is too high to leave now. I do not want to have to send American soldiers back to Iraq in a few years to deal with an even tougher situation. I do not want to leave a breeding ground of terror. But I understand there are many Americans who want this war to end, regardless of the consequences of leaving soon. And no doubt there are some in this body and in the House of Representatives who share that same view. We as a Congress can end this war, but we cannot end it by nonbinding resolutions such as the one that passed the House of Representatives this week that the majority leader now wants us to be forced to vote on in the Senate. We can end this war through the appropriations process by cutting off funds for this war. This is why I am so frustrated by this debate. This is why I am frustrated by many of my friends and colleagues in this great body. Many want to vote on a nonbinding resolution that opposes our strategy in Iraq to show their constituents they oppose the war, yet not make the tougher decision through the appropriations process. I know many of my colleagues who want to vote on this misguided House resolution will not--I repeat--not vote to cut off the funding for this war. They just want to have it both ways: they want to support a nonbinding measure opposing the war but not actually to stop the war by exercising their constitutional right to cut off its funding. We should not vote to cut off the funding of this war. And that is the basic theme of the Gregg resolution on which the majority leader will not allow us to vote. The majority leader will not allow this vote because he knows it will pass the Senate overwhelmingly. This does not make sense to me or many of my colleagues, and I do not think it makes sense to many Americans who have actually followed this debate closely. That is why I will vote again today against moving to the misguided House-passed resolution without the commitment that we Republicans be allowed to offer our own resolution of our own choosing. Our resolution, the Gregg resolution, gives support to our troops. Unlike the resolution before us today, it does not send contradictory signals to the troops by telling them that on one hand we oppose their mission but on the other hand we support them as soldiers. That is not the message we need to be sending to our troops at this critical time.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I congratulate King's Daughters Medical Center, KDMC, of Ashland, Ky. KDMC was recently selected as an award winner in the 2006 Solucient 100 Top Hospitals: Cardiovascular Benchmarks for Success Study, 8th Edition. Solucient developed the 100 Top Cardiovascular Hospitals study to identify hospitals that are the highest performers in the Nation in cardiovascular service, and to set performance targets for improving clinical outcomes and management practices. To qualify, hospitals must achieve high scores across eight equally weighted performance criteria that reflect clinical processes and outcomes, volume, efficiency and cost for four treatment areas: acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention. In addition to this prestigious award, KDMC also received a five-star rating for cardiothoracic surgery. This placed KDMC in the top 5 percent in the Nation and No. 1 in Kentucky for cardiac surgery. I congratulate KDMC on this outstanding achievement. Their service to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is an inspiration to all. I look forward to all that KDMC accomplishes in the future.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I recognize Save the Children USA's 75th anniversary. I am proud to say that Save the Children work began in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Today, Save the Children continues to work in 33 different sites in Kentucky rural communities, serving approximately 3,000 children in need. This program was founded on January 7, 1932, in response to the needs of children and families struggling to survive the Great Depression in the Appalachian mountain region of Harlan County, KY. In 1938 Save the Children launched a Hot School Lunch program for undernourished children in nine States. Later it became one of the models for the national school lunch program. Today, the organization's U.S. programs concentrate on literacy and nutrition programs benefiting over 20,000 children in areas of constant rural poverty in 12 States. Internationally, Save the Children works in more than 50 developing countries helping children by providing food, medical services and shelter to those in need. Once again I congratulate Save the Children USA on their 75th anniversary. I appreciate the dedication of Save the Children to this worthy cause and their hard work is greatly affecting the lives of many people. Everyone involved in this organization is truly an inspiration to all.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the American family and the need to extend important tax relief provisions to help make adoption more affordable. The high cost of adoptions causes many couples to dismiss adoption as too expensive. By helping to ease this financial burden, we can encourage the development of more stable families and provide a brighter future for thousands of children. These important goals prompted us to act in 2001, when we passed important adoption incentives in the form of tax credits. However, these provisions are set to expire or ``sunset'' after December 31, 2010. Our entire society benefits when children are placed with loving, permanent families. That is why today I am introducing the Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act with Senator Ben Nelson. The Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act will permanently extend the 2001 adoption incentives allowing those Americans who adopt a child to continue to receive a credit in the amount of their qualified expenses and guarantees the maximum $10,000 credit for those who adopt children with special needs. This legislation will help middle class families break the financial barriers and successfully adopt a child, especially those children with special needs who are in particular need of a loving home. I am pleased that Senators from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored this legislation, and that it has received endorsement from the National Council for Adoption and RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association. The adoption tax credit and assistance programs have already helped countless children and families by making adoption more affordable. We owe it to future generations of children in need to make these provisions permanent. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the American family and the need to extend important tax relief provisions to help make adoption more affordable. The high cost of adoptions causes many couples to dismiss adoption as too expensive. By helping to ease this financial burden, we can encourage the development of more stable families and provide a brighter future for thousands of children. These important goals prompted us to act in 2001, when we passed important adoption incentives in the form of tax credits. However, these provisions are set to expire or ``sunset'' after December 31, 2010. Our entire society benefits when children are placed with loving, permanent families. That is why today I am introducing the Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act with Senator Ben Nelson. The Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act will permanently extend the 2001 adoption incentives allowing those Americans who adopt a child to continue to receive a credit in the amount of their qualified expenses and guarantees the maximum $10,000 credit for those who adopt children with special needs. This legislation will help middle class families break the financial barriers and successfully adopt a child, especially those children with special needs who are in particular need of a loving home. I am pleased that Senators from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored this legislation, and that it has received endorsement from the National Council for Adoption and RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association. The adoption tax credit and assistance programs have already helped countless children and families by making adoption more affordable. We owe it to future generations of children in need to make these provisions permanent. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I also rise to express my complete dismay at the events that have unfolded on the floor of the Senate this week concerning not only debate on Iraq but the BRAC itself. I hope the American people are watching this debate.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. First of all, I hope the American people are watching the debate and paying close attention to it. This debate is not just an important lesson in civics and civility, it is a debate that goes back to the days of our Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers created the Senate to be a body of unlimited debate. This institution was created to be a deliberative body. It was not created for speed or for quick action. I would like to remind my friend, the majority leader, whom I wish were on the floor, that the Senate is not the House of Representatives. The majority leader and I both served in the House of Representatives. Unlike the House, however, we do not have a rules committee in the Senate that sets the rules for floor debate. Any Senator can come to the floor seeking recognition to speak and offer amendments. In the House, the majority can roll the minority through the Rules Committee. This cannot be done in the Senate. The minority party cannot be ignored. Yet our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to dictate the terms not only of the debate on Iraq and the resolutions concerning them, they are telling 49 Republicans in the Senate how business will be conducted in the Senate. I want to be very clear that I would vote in opposition to the Warner resolution. Nonbinding resolutions that question military decisions made by our Commander in Chief and top military generals are not in the best interests of our Nation. But I do support the right of Senator Warner to get an up-or-down vote on his resolution, even though I would oppose it. Earlier this week, we had a vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed with the Warner resolution. Forty-seven Republicans voted against the motion because we believe we should have more debate, not less, and the ability to offer other resolutions. Yet many of my friends on the other side of the aisle accuse my Republican colleagues of not wanting to debate this issue and not wanting to vote on the Warner resolution. And, not surprisingly, the media is regurgitating the talking points from the other side of the aisle. But nothing could be further from the truth. Senator Warner, the author of the resolution favored overwhelmingly by the Democrats, voted against invoking cloture on his own resolution because he believes in Republicans keeping their rights as Senators. We want a fair debate, not a one-sided conversation. We are asking for more debate, not less, like many on the other side of the aisle suggest. Our request is a simple one. If we are going to vote on the Warner resolution, those of us who oppose this resolution should at least be allowed to offer our own resolution, and the senior Senator from New Hampshire offered his resolution concerning funding for the war in Iraq. Some have said his resolution is incorporated in the Warner resolution, but they are missing two key points. The Gregg resolution expresses our full support of our troops and not support that is just cloaked behind other language that criticizes their mission. My friend, my good friend, General Petraeus, whom the Senate unanimously confirmed, said in his confirmation hearing that a resolution condemning the President's new Iraq strategy would have a detrimental effect on troop morale. It must be our top priority to assure American troops that we will not cut off their funding midmission. We already are cutting some of their funds, as seen in this year's continuing resolution. I find it ironic that some of the same Senators who have been on the Senate floor assuring their full support for the troops are the same individuals who are cutting their funding behind closed doors. I am talking about the funding for the Base Realignment and Construction Program. This is a program that, by law, we have to complete in 6 years. Yet my friends across the aisle have decided not to fund this program because it is not a priority. Well, it is a priority for me. By doing this, they will cause a delay for up to 1 year for military base construction. Because of this, and I ask my good friend, the Senator from Texas, what happens to the 12,000 troops that will not be able to be redeployed back home from Iraq or from Germany or from around the world?

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, to say that I find this disappointing is quite an understatement. I ask the majority leader to allow us to have a full and fair debate on the CR and allow us to offer amendments. We should be able to debate and vote on the Gregg resolution. This is a resolution that does not play into our enemies' hands. General Petraeus commented that a commander needs to show the enemy that there is no hope of victory. The Gregg resolution does this. It expresses our absolute support for our Commander in Chief and our men and women in Iraq, instead of showing that the will of the American people has been stripped by opportunistic terrorists. Mr. President, for Republicans, this is not about a Senate procedural process but about the priorities of the American people. Our Republican leader, my colleague from Kentucky, has tried all week to negotiate to get a vote on the Gregg resolution, in conjunction with the other resolution, the Warner resolution. I appreciate Senator McConnell's efforts, but the majority leader, and many on both sides of the aisle, do not want the vote on the Gregg resolution. Instead, they claim that Republicans do not want to debate the war in Iraq. This is completely false. The American people need to know that, and the media needs to report the truth. No one Republican, not one to whom I have spoken, is running from this debate. We want to debate the war in Iraq. Many of us oppose the Warner resolution. It is nonbinding. It sends the wrong message to our enemies and our allies. It will not end the war in Iraq, and it will not bring peace to the Middle East. But we should vote on it, and we should vote on the Gregg resolution because even though the Gregg resolution is nonbinding, it actually relates to the proper role of the Congress with respect to war. Essentially, the Gregg resolution says that Congress will not vote to defund the war when we have troops in harm's way. This is the proper role of Congress. It does not deter from the Commander in Chief. We don't dictate military strategy, but we do have the power of the purse. We can either fund the war or not fund the war. I am not a lawyer, thank God, but I have spent over two decades in Congress, in both the House and the Senate. And I know the proper role of the legislative branch. I know the rules of the House, and I know the rules of the Senate. I also know the importance of not sending the wrong message to our troops in the field. Mr. President, I have voted to send my own son into war. That was the gulf war. I know the stakes are very high. I know this is an issue that is on every American's mind. But I resent my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that Republicans are running from this debate. We are not. I hope today that we can remind my colleagues that this is the U.S. Senate, and the minority has its say. We should vote both on the Warner resolution and the Gregg resolution and we should also vote to have amendments to the CR and be able to address the BRAC problem that we face and what will happen if they reduce this by $3.2 billion. I have an editorial of the New York Times I will submit for the Record at this time. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, and I yield to my good friend from Texas.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for their nice words. They might disagree on certain issues, but I am glad they agree on one thing--that I finally made it to the U.S. Senate after spending 12 years in the House and did have a private and professional life prior to service here in the Federal Government. I thank both Senators. As we prepare to discuss the war in Iraq, I would like to take a couple of minutes to discuss the issue of personal responsibility, civility, and the role of American diplomacy. Since the founding of our great Nation, we have had a long and proud tradition of international diplomacy. Our diplomacy has taken many forms, whether it is through official state visits or through less formal channels, such as congressional delegations traveling to individual countries. What we all need to remember is that when we are on a trip to a foreign country, we act as American diplomats. This is something which I would like my colleagues to remember, especially when they speak on American foreign policy in public international forums and settings. Most of our colleagues take this role seriously and act in a manner that is consistent with the advancements of our Nation's foreign policy. We should not use the international stage as an opportunity to denounce our own country by making irresponsible comments that endanger our foreign policy by sending the wrong messages to our enemies. We currently face a critical turning point in our Nation's foreign policy. As representatives of this Government, we need to be responsible with our remarks on foreign soil and to show some form of civility when airing our grievances about our President, our country's stand on diplomatic issues, and the war in Iraq. While we do have our disagreements on how this country should proceed, I believe we need to iron out these problems at home rather than taking them to an international stage and using that opportunity to make politically offensive comments towards our country. Saying our country is shameful at an international forum only hurts our standing among world leaders we are trying to negotiate with on important trade deals and other foreign policy issues such as preventing further international conflict. We need to help build up America on the international stage, not shoot ourselves in the foot by tearing ourselves down with statements used for political gain. Most Americans do not belong to the ``Blame America First'' crowd. Most Americans don't support bashing our country on the international stage. Most Americans agree that politics ends at the water's edge. The ``Blame America First'' crowd spreads negative sentiment about the United States, and then wonders why the rest of the world has a low opinion of America. They are feeding the very beast they claim they are trying to tame. Most Americans are proud of what this country stands for. The United States is one of the largest contributors in economic aid to developing countries. We continually work as a Nation to extend a helping hand to those in need. Funding for bilateral and economic assistance has increased consecutively over the past 6 years, reaching unprecedented levels in the international community. We have also taken the lead in the fight against the spread of HIV and AIDS. We recognize that this pandemic is destroying lives, undermining economies, and threatening to destabilize entire regions. The President's emergency plan for AIDS relief is the largest commitment ever made by any nation to combat HIV and AIDS. The number of people benefiting from this program has grown from 50,000 to 800,000 in 3 years. It is an extremely successful program and continues to grow in support every year. We also continue to provide lifesaving drugs to fight malaria to those in need in Africa. Through the President's malaria initiative we have been able to provide millions of lifesaving treatments in order to prevent the spread of this debilitating disease. These international successes often go largely unnoticed and are overshadowed by the current debate on the war in Iraq. I ask my colleagues to take a moment this week to reflect upon our foreign policy successes as well as our current challenges. I believe that we can build upon our mistakes and learn from them. We must work collectively on advancing our national interests instead of splintering off and playing into the hands of our enemies. Some of the proposed resolutions on Iraq send a terrible message to both our troops and allies and only hurt our national interests. Even more importantly, I believe they send a dangerous message to our enemies. I do not support these kinds of nonbinding resolutions that criticize our plans for Iraq and I plan to oppose them. They are counterproductive and will not make our problems in Iraq go away now or in the near future. I support working to find real solutions to the problem at hand, not politically motivated attempts that offer little or no alternative. I will not participate in this empty political posturing. My main focus is on providing moral and material support for our troops. We must not forget our commitment to our troops and in turn the commitment they made to our country and the mission in Iraq. I believe they deserve our full support, not criticism and idle threats to cut their funding. Like many of my colleagues, I was initially skeptical of sending additional reinforcement troops to Iraq, but I believe that we must give the President's new strategy a chance to succeed. Abruptly cutting and running is not a viable option. This would only further hinder our efforts in the war on terror and endanger our regional allies in the Middle East. I will support our commander and chief in his new way forward in Iraq and will support General Petraeus, our new commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, in his efforts to carry out this plan. I believe that General Petraeus is a key component in this new strategy. He is a friend. He has spent many years of his fine career stationed at Fort Campbell, KY. I have the utmost respect for him and confidence in his leadership skills and judgment. His service in Iraq has equipped him with an expertise in irregular warfare and operations and a true understanding of the enemy we face. In his 27 months in Iraq, he led a division into battle, oversaw the reconstruction and governance of Iraq's third-largest city, and built up from virtually nothing Iraq's army and police force. He managed to do this all by earning the respect of the Iraqis--all Iraqis--the Kurds, Sunnis and the Shias. General Petraeus and I talked, just the two of us, for nearly an hour in my office this week. I asked tough questions. And he responded with realistic answers about what it takes for us to succeed in Iraq. He knows that Iraqis have to live up to their end of the bargain. Now we must show General Petraeus that we will live up to our end of the bargain and give him the opportunity to carry out his mission. Some of our colleagues support General Petraeus but do not support his mission. Many of our colleagues that unanimously voted to give General Petraeus his fourth star last week will likely vote in favor of proposed resolutions that question the very mission that General Petraeus testified in support of before the Senate Armed Services Committee. This does not make sense to me. Right now we cannot afford to distinguish between the two. I am not asking my colleagues for an open-ended commitment, just a little more patience--patience to see if this new strategy works, patience to see if Iraqis will hold up their end of the bargain and meet the benchmarks set by both our countries, and finally, patience to allow our troops to complete their mission. Our troops are committed to their mission. Now we owe them our commitment. This is our last best hope for progress in Iraq. In his confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Petraeus offered to provide Congress with regular reports on the progress of his mission and on the performance and cooperation of Iraqis. I plan on taking him up on this offer. We must keep up to date on the situation in Iraq as it changes so that we can best help our new commander address the situation at hand. I wish General Petraeus the best of luck in this mission. It is a daunting task but I have faith in him and his leadership capabilities. I ask my colleagues for their support. We must show a united front and give this plan a chance to succeed. The cost of failure is too great. We cannot afford failure in Iraq and the international community cannot either, so I ask my colleagues to reflect on these serious issues before we begin debating the resolutions concerning the war in Iraq next week. Let us show both our allies and our enemies that we can be united behind our Nation's foreign policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the life of Barbaro, the 2006 Kentucky Derby Champion. He was an inspirational survivor and was beloved by the State of Kentucky. Barbaro's motivational rise to the top of horse racing history and relentless fight for his life against all odds, serves as a shining example of strength and courage to us all. Barbaro first entered this world on April 29, 2003, when he was foaled in Nicholasville, KY, at Springmint Farm. He is the son of the great champion racehorse Dynaformer and was destined to be a champion from the beginning. Barbaro was always a favorite of the crowd, but it was his performance at the Kentucky Derby, May 6, 2006, that would make him a legend. He ended up winning the Derby with a lead of seven lengths, which was the largest margin of victory since 1946. Because of this spectacular race, many people believed Barbaro was destined for greatness in the horse racing industry and favored him to go on to win the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing. Later that same year, Barbaro ran the Preakness Stakes on May 20, 2006, as the crowd favorite. After an initial false start through the starting gate and signs of distress early on in the race, it was clear that Barbaro had sustained a severe injury. Laboratory tests showed that he had fractured three bones in and around his ankle and right hind leg. This resulted in immediate surgery and many subsequent surgeries. A last effort was made by doctors to save Barbaro, but their continued efforts proved to be unsuccessful and caused his current ailments to spread farther through his body. Although he kept fighting to recover, it was clear to everyone that he was in monumental pain. On January 29, 2007, Barbaro's owners decided that his pain was too much to handle and he was laid to rest. Barbaro had a unique, motivational quality that made him the object of care and affection from the public in a way that few animals before him have ever experienced. He will be terribly missed but never forgotten. Barbaro was a champion, a fighter, and a true inspiration to the entire State of Kentucky.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for their nice words. They might disagree on certain issues, but I am glad they agree on one thing--that I finally made it to the U.S. Senate after spending 12 years in the House and did have a private and professional life prior to service here in the Federal Government. I thank both Senators. As we prepare to discuss the war in Iraq, I would like to take a couple of minutes to discuss the issue of personal responsibility, civility, and the role of American diplomacy. Since the founding of our great Nation, we have had a long and proud tradition of international diplomacy. Our diplomacy has taken many forms, whether it is through official state visits or through less formal channels, such as congressional delegations traveling to individual countries. What we all need to remember is that when we are on a trip to a foreign country, we act as American diplomats. This is something which I would like my colleagues to remember, especially when they speak on American foreign policy in public international forums and settings. Most of our colleagues take this role seriously and act in a manner that is consistent with the advancements of our Nation's foreign policy. We should not use the international stage as an opportunity to denounce our own country by making irresponsible comments that endanger our foreign policy by sending the wrong messages to our enemies. We currently face a critical turning point in our Nation's foreign policy. As representatives of this Government, we need to be responsible with our remarks on foreign soil and to show some form of civility when airing our grievances about our President, our country's stand on diplomatic issues, and the war in Iraq. While we do have our disagreements on how this country should proceed, I believe we need to iron out these problems at home rather than taking them to an international stage and using that opportunity to make politically offensive comments towards our country. Saying our country is shameful at an international forum only hurts our standing among world leaders we are trying to negotiate with on important trade deals and other foreign policy issues such as preventing further international conflict. We need to help build up America on the international stage, not shoot ourselves in the foot by tearing ourselves down with statements used for political gain. Most Americans do not belong to the ``Blame America First'' crowd. Most Americans don't support bashing our country on the international stage. Most Americans agree that politics ends at the water's edge. The ``Blame America First'' crowd spreads negative sentiment about the United States, and then wonders why the rest of the world has a low opinion of America. They are feeding the very beast they claim they are trying to tame. Most Americans are proud of what this country stands for. The United States is one of the largest contributors in economic aid to developing countries. We continually work as a Nation to extend a helping hand to those in need. Funding for bilateral and economic assistance has increased consecutively over the past 6 years, reaching unprecedented levels in the international community. We have also taken the lead in the fight against the spread of HIV and AIDS. We recognize that this pandemic is destroying lives, undermining economies, and threatening to destabilize entire regions. The President's emergency plan for AIDS relief is the largest commitment ever made by any nation to combat HIV and AIDS. The number of people benefiting from this program has grown from 50,000 to 800,000 in 3 years. It is an extremely successful program and continues to grow in support every year. We also continue to provide lifesaving drugs to fight malaria to those in need in Africa. Through the President's malaria initiative we have been able to provide millions of lifesaving treatments in order to prevent the spread of this debilitating disease. These international successes often go largely unnoticed and are overshadowed by the current debate on the war in Iraq. I ask my colleagues to take a moment this week to reflect upon our foreign policy successes as well as our current challenges. I believe that we can build upon our mistakes and learn from them. We must work collectively on advancing our national interests instead of splintering off and playing into the hands of our enemies. Some of the proposed resolutions on Iraq send a terrible message to both our troops and allies and only hurt our national interests. Even more importantly, I believe they send a dangerous message to our enemies. I do not support these kinds of nonbinding resolutions that criticize our plans for Iraq and I plan to oppose them. They are counterproductive and will not make our problems in Iraq go away now or in the near future. I support working to find real solutions to the problem at hand, not politically motivated attempts that offer little or no alternative. I will not participate in this empty political posturing. My main focus is on providing moral and material support for our troops. We must not forget our commitment to our troops and in turn the commitment they made to our country and the mission in Iraq. I believe they deserve our full support, not criticism and idle threats to cut their funding. Like many of my colleagues, I was initially skeptical of sending additional reinforcement troops to Iraq, but I believe that we must give the President's new strategy a chance to succeed. Abruptly cutting and running is not a viable option. This would only further hinder our efforts in the war on terror and endanger our regional allies in the Middle East. I will support our commander and chief in his new way forward in Iraq and will support General Petraeus, our new commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, in his efforts to carry out this plan. I believe that General Petraeus is a key component in this new strategy. He is a friend. He has spent many years of his fine career stationed at Fort Campbell, KY. I have the utmost respect for him and confidence in his leadership skills and judgment. His service in Iraq has equipped him with an expertise in irregular warfare and operations and a true understanding of the enemy we face. In his 27 months in Iraq, he led a division into battle, oversaw the reconstruction and governance of Iraq's third-largest city, and built up from virtually nothing Iraq's army and police force. He managed to do this all by earning the respect of the Iraqis--all Iraqis--the Kurds, Sunnis and the Shias. General Petraeus and I talked, just the two of us, for nearly an hour in my office this week. I asked tough questions. And he responded with realistic answers about what it takes for us to succeed in Iraq. He knows that Iraqis have to live up to their end of the bargain. Now we must show General Petraeus that we will live up to our end of the bargain and give him the opportunity to carry out his mission. Some of our colleagues support General Petraeus but do not support his mission. Many of our colleagues that unanimously voted to give General Petraeus his fourth star last week will likely vote in favor of proposed resolutions that question the very mission that General Petraeus testified in support of before the Senate Armed Services Committee. This does not make sense to me. Right now we cannot afford to distinguish between the two. I am not asking my colleagues for an open-ended commitment, just a little more patience--patience to see if this new strategy works, patience to see if Iraqis will hold up their end of the bargain and meet the benchmarks set by both our countries, and finally, patience to allow our troops to complete their mission. Our troops are committed to their mission. Now we owe them our commitment. This is our last best hope for progress in Iraq. In his confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Petraeus offered to provide Congress with regular reports on the progress of his mission and on the performance and cooperation of Iraqis. I plan on taking him up on this offer. We must keep up to date on the situation in Iraq as it changes so that we can best help our new commander address the situation at hand. I wish General Petraeus the best of luck in this mission. It is a daunting task but I have faith in him and his leadership capabilities. I ask my colleagues for their support. We must show a united front and give this plan a chance to succeed. The cost of failure is too great. We cannot afford failure in Iraq and the international community cannot either, so I ask my colleagues to reflect on these serious issues before we begin debating the resolutions concerning the war in Iraq next week. Let us show both our allies and our enemies that we can be united behind our Nation's foreign policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to Army SGT Tommy Rieman, a native of Independence, KY, who received the military Silver Star for exceptional courage. He exhibited this courage when insurgents attacked his reconnaissance squad near the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq on December 3, 2003. His selfless act of bravery and unwillingness to fail exemplify the true definition of a soldier. Sergeant Rieman grew up in Independence, a small town in northern Kentucky. While at Simon Kenton High School, he was captain of the football team and was a member of the wrestling team, before he graduated in 1999. Sergeant Rieman was a teenager, pumping gas at a local gas station when he decided to enlist in the Army. This monumental decision he made to begin his exceptional military career would go on to shape his destiny. While serving in Iraq, Sergeant Rieman showcased immense calm under pressure, when his squad came under attack by insurgents. With the convoy under heavy fire from rocket-propelled grenades and explosive devices, he used his own body as a shield to protect his squad gunman and returned fire to the enemy. The humvees that the squad was traveling in did not have any doors, so as a result Sergeant Rieman suffered two bullet wounds and multiple shrapnel injuries. Despite these injuries, he was still able to direct the convoy off the road and away from the live fire combat, only to be attacked by another smaller group of insurgents. Sergeant Rieman commanded and led his squad to return fire, and the enemy's weapons were silenced. At this point, the situation was calm and he was able to call a medical helicopter to treat the injuries of these brave soldiers. After returning from Iraq, in August 2004 Sergeant Rieman was awarded a Silver Star for his brave actions that day in Fort Bragg, NC. He is now employed as an administrative assistant for the Army personnel office in the Pentagon. In May 2006, he was selected to be a participant in the ``America's Army: Real Heroes'' video game program, which recounts the lives of military soldiers who have shown heroism and bravery in the war on terror. Sergeant Rieman will have his military history and motivational story told through this game, with the hope of inspiring others to greatness. On January 23, 2007, Sergeant Rieman was a guest of the First Lady and was formally recognized by President Bush, who discussed his bravery in the annual State of the Union Address to Congress. He stated that Sergeant Rieman, like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, had earned the respect of the Nation. I cannot agree with this statement more. It brings me great pride to see a soldier of the caliber of Sergeant Rieman represent Kentucky in such a courageous and selfless way. He is an inspirational example to me and to the entire Commonwealth.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it is my distinct honor to rise today and speak in support of the nomination of David Petraeus to become the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. I am confident that with General Petraeus's experience, leadership skills, and judgment, he will prove to be an outstanding commander. I can speak from experience because General Petraeus is a personal friend of mine. Not only is he a friend of mine but also of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I met General Petraeus initially at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, but even more importantly, when I made a codel to Iraq in 2004 with former Senator Zell Miller, we spent some time with General Petraeus and the 101st in Mosul. At that time, he was the commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul. As many of my colleagues might know, the 101st Air Force is based out of Fort Campbell, KY. While in Mosul, I had an opportunity to spend some time with General Petraeus and see his troops in action. What I saw was one of the most impressive military leaders I have ever met, and I have met a lot of them. In his 27 months in Iraq--27 months in Iraq--General Petraeus was asked to lead a division into battle, to oversee the reconstruction and governance of Iraq's third largest city, and to build up from virtually nothing Iraq's army and police force. General Petraeus not only met all of these challenges, but he succeeded in showing them a unique type of flexibility and adaptability in his leadership. I believe this to be a very important skill that will serve him well in his new mission in Iraq. While in Iraq, I was able to see firsthand how this skill of adaptability transcends General Petraeus and was passed on to his troops serving under his command. It was soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein when the 101st Airborne Division got the orders to go to Mosul. They were charged with restarting the city's economy, getting civil institutions on their feet, and creating a working democracy. Under the command of General Petraeus, some officers supervised cement factories, others electricity generation. Soldiers who had studied military aviation tactics found themselves figuring out how to run a university, and an artillery officer was responsible for figuring out how to get the region's oil flowing again. General Petraeus himself even supervised the city's first elections, elections of Iraqis of very diverse backgrounds. How did he do all this? He did it through a partnership between the U.S. forces and the Iraqis, the exact type of partnership the President is calling for in his new way forward in Iraq. It is this type of forward thinking which will help our mission in Iraq to succeed. General Petraeus has also managed to earn the respect of the Iraqis, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias. This type of working relationship of mutual respect is desperately needed at this time in Iraq. I recognize it, General Petraeus recognizes it, and so does the President of the United States. One of the key components in the President's new strategy in Iraq is creating a real partnership between U.S. forces and Iraqi forces where we would effectively train the Iraqis to secure their own neighborhoods and then act, the U.S. troops, as reserve reinforcements. Through this training and security, Iraq neighborhoods could once again begin to rebuild themselves, restoring vital services such as water and electricity to the Iraqi people. Eventually we can begin to restore peace to embattled neighborhoods in Baghdad. This is no easy task, and no one knows that better than General Petraeus. He has even admitted to it being a daunting task. But I am confident in his ability to lead. His service in Iraq has equipped him with expertise in irregular warfare and operations and a true understanding of the enemy we face. Like many of my colleagues here on the floor of the Senate, I, too, was initially skeptical of sending additional reinforcement troops to Iraq. But I am convinced that we have to allow General Petraeus the opportunity to succeed in this mission. In this effort, he has offered to provide Congress with regular reports on the status of his mission, on the performance and commitment particularly of the Iraqis to their promises. I, for one, would like to take General Petraeus up on his offer, and I am sure everyone in the Senate feels the same way. I believe it is vital that we keep up to date daily on the situation in Iraq as it changes so we can best help our new commander address the situation he faces. Judging how the Senate's Armed Services Committee unanimously voted him out of committee on Wednesday, I know I am not alone in my confidence in him. I urge my colleagues today to support General Petraeus's nomination. I wish him Godspeed in his mission and look forward to seeing the progress we can make in Iraq under his leadership as we continue to defeat the terrorists and to win this war against them. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. How much time do I have?

Mr. BUNNING. First of all, as my good colleague with whom I spent 12 years, 8 of which were spent on the Ways and Means Committee--as my colleague knows, the House always has the opportunity to blue-slip the bill if they do not like it because it has tax provisions added that originated in the Senate. They have a chance to blue-slip if they don't like the provisions. So we will send it to the House and see what they do with it. So that argument is not sound basically. If we want to balance the Federal budget, I suggest we not do it on the backs of our senior citizens. That is what my good colleague from Maryland is asking Members to do. I am asking that our seniors, our most vulnerable people in society, those who are so wealthy at $33,000 worth of income, who have to pay and get their Medicare furnished to them by the Federal Government, I ask that they not be asked to burden another 35 percent increase, which they have been asked to do since 1993. I don't think it is fair to ask our senior citizens to carry that burden when the younger Americans, who pay the bulk of our taxes, are those who should be asked to pay the burden. One thing I want to make sure Members understand when they vote on this amendment is, never in the history of this tax has one penny of it ever gone into the Social Security system--not one penny--since 1993. It has all been dedicated to Medicare Part A. It has only been dedicated to Medicare Part A because it was sinking. Then we raised the cap to allow uncapped provisions to fund Medicare Part A since 1993. So where we capped Social Security benefits at a certain level, Medicare Part A and Medicare taxes have been uncapped. If you make $5 million a year, you pay a portion of that in a tax to the Medicare system. Let's be honest. My amendment is the only real amendment that repeals the 1993 tax on the Social Security benefits that senior citizens receive each month, at the end of the month or the first of the month. This is the only time we will get a chance to vote on this issue. Maybe we will get another tax bill before the Senate this year. I guarantee if this goes down, we will revisit this again in a later bill; it is that important. Our seniors are struggling to pay their bills, as is everyone else in America. A tax reduction for them, 35 percent on their Social Security benefits--if they saved any money, we are going to penalize them if they have saved a little bit for retirement. That makes no sense at all when we encourage savings every day. Now we are going to penalize them with their Social Security benefits because they have an income of $34,000 or $44,000? I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUNNING. Well, Mr. President, we just passed a sense-of-the- Senate amendment that does nothing to reduce the tax on our senior citizens. Our good friends always say they want to only tax millionaires, but it always ends up the same way, with higher taxes on millions--millions of workers, millions of families, millions of small businesspeople, and now, here again, millions of our senior citizens. If you actually want to reduce the tax, you must vote for the Bunning amendment because that is the only amendment that actually removes the 35-percent increase we put on our senior citizens in 1993. So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Bunning amendment.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we will be voting on two amendments shortly, both dealing with the 1993 tax placed on Social Security benefits. First, let me point out I am pleased the other side apparently agrees with me that these taxes need to be repealed. However, only one amendment which we will be voting on today actually does that, and that is my amendment. My amendment, the Bunning amendment, would actually repeal the unfair tax on senior citizens and provide relief. The amendment proposed by my good friend, Senator Baucus, would not actually do anything. It is simply a sense of the Senate. This issue is fairly simple. When the Social Security program was created, benefits were not taxed at all. However, since then, Congress twice has added taxes on these benefits for supposedly wealthy seniors. In 1993, a tax was placed on 85 percent of seniors' Social Security benefits if their income was above $34,000, if they were single, or $44,000 for a couple. Those are wealthy seniors. These numbers aren't indexed to inflation. So what has happened is more and more senior citizens are affected by them each year. My amendment is fairly simple. It repeals the tax starting in 2008. Seniors would not have to pay this additional tax. The amendment for the other side is the type of thing known in the real world as a cover- your-backside amendment. It does not give America's senior citizens a tax cut. All it does is provide political cover. It is a sense of the Senate which says that Congress should repeal the 1993 tax. We all know that a sense of the Senate amendment doesn't really mean anything. It cannot be enacted into law. Congress never has to consider the issue again. But our seniors will still be paying this tax. My amendment actually repeals the 35-percent increase that was put on seniors in 1993. I think this issue is important enough to act on immediately. My amendment would do that. If my amendment were to become law, the seniors would see the tax decrease on January 1, 2008. It will happen instead of playing political games. The sense of the Senate amendment basically thumbs its nose at American seniors. If it passes, we are saying that although we agree the 1993 tax should be repealed, we aren't going to do anything about it. A vote for the Bunning amendment is a vote for a tax decrease on America's working seniors, on January 1, 2008; that is the date, no ifs, ands or buts about it. As for paying for the amendment, the amendment is paid for. It is paid for exactly like a lot of other things we pay for in this body: out of general fund dollars. We fund the Medicare Part A system generally out of general fund dollars. Our good friend from Montana has suggested there is a trigger mechanism, when we get close to a certain figure, on paying for Medicare Part A out of general fund dollars, and that is true. But the fact is, over a 10-year period, at about $20 billion a year, our senior citizens will have relief from this unbelievable 35 percent increase on seniors that we put on them in 1993. I think it is about time we stop fooling with it and actually do the job and repeal the tax of 1993. I would like to see that done today.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important bill that will ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries in all states have access to the services of top-quality podiatric physicians. Senator Mikulski from Maryland is joining me in the effort again this year, and I appreciate her dedication to this issue. Having healthy feet and ankles are critical to keeping individuals mobile, productive and in good long-term health. This is particularly true for individuals with diabetes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, almost 21 million Americans have diabetes, which amounts to about 7 percent of the total population. Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in this country. In 2005, 1.5 million Americans were diagnosed with diabetes. If not managed properly, diabetes can cause several severe health problems, including eye disease or blindness, kidney disease and heart disease. Too often, diabetes can lead to foot complications, including foot ulcers and even amputations. In fact, the CDC estimates that 82,000 people undergo an amputation of a leg, foot or toe each year because of complications with diabetes. Proper care of the feet could prevent many of these amputations. The bill we are introducing today recognizes the important role podiatrists can play identifying and correcting foot problems among diabetics. The bill amends Medicaid's definition of ``physicians'' to include podiatric physicians. This will ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries have access to foot care from those most qualified to provide it. Under Medicaid, podiatry is considered an optional benefit. However, just because it is optional, doesn't mean that podiatric services are not needed, or that beneficiaries will not seek out other providers to perform these services. Instead, Medicaid beneficiaries will have to receive foot care from other providers who may not be as well trained as a podiatrist in treating lower extremities. Also, it is important to note that podiatrists are considered physicians under the Medicare program, which allows seniors and disabled individuals to receive appropriate care. I urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to this important bill. It will help many Medicaid beneficiaries across the country have access to podiatrists that they need. Finally, I thank the Senator from Maryland for helping me reintroduce this legislation today. I hope that by working together we can see this important change made.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important bill that will ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries in all states have access to the services of top-quality podiatric physicians. Senator Mikulski from Maryland is joining me in the effort again this year, and I appreciate her dedication to this issue. Having healthy feet and ankles are critical to keeping individuals mobile, productive and in good long-term health. This is particularly true for individuals with diabetes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, almost 21 million Americans have diabetes, which amounts to about 7 percent of the total population. Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in this country. In 2005, 1.5 million Americans were diagnosed with diabetes. If not managed properly, diabetes can cause several severe health problems, including eye disease or blindness, kidney disease and heart disease. Too often, diabetes can lead to foot complications, including foot ulcers and even amputations. In fact, the CDC estimates that 82,000 people undergo an amputation of a leg, foot or toe each year because of complications with diabetes. Proper care of the feet could prevent many of these amputations. The bill we are introducing today recognizes the important role podiatrists can play identifying and correcting foot problems among diabetics. The bill amends Medicaid's definition of ``physicians'' to include podiatric physicians. This will ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries have access to foot care from those most qualified to provide it. Under Medicaid, podiatry is considered an optional benefit. However, just because it is optional, doesn't mean that podiatric services are not needed, or that beneficiaries will not seek out other providers to perform these services. Instead, Medicaid beneficiaries will have to receive foot care from other providers who may not be as well trained as a podiatrist in treating lower extremities. Also, it is important to note that podiatrists are considered physicians under the Medicare program, which allows seniors and disabled individuals to receive appropriate care. I urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to this important bill. It will help many Medicaid beneficiaries across the country have access to podiatrists that they need. Finally, I thank the Senator from Maryland for helping me reintroduce this legislation today. I hope that by working together we can see this important change made.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the city of Erlanger, KY, which is the recipient of the 2006 Award for Municipal Excellence at the National League of Cities' Congress of Cities. This city's Tiered Advanced Life Support System Program for Emergency Medical Services earned Erlanger the Gold Award, which is presented to cities that have a population below 50,000 people. By winning this prestigious award, the Erlanger Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services, EMS, team exhibit the power of hard work as well as their dedication to their community while serving as an example to the rest of the United States. Since 1989, the goal of the Awards for Municipal Excellence has been to recognize cities that improve the lives of citizens in their communities. These awards identify and feature outstanding city and town programs that show innovation in enhancing the quality of life in America's communities. The fire department and city of Erlanger recognize the need to have paramedic response and transport capabilities for the safety and welfare of the citizens in its community of 17,000 people. After debating several options, they found a fire service-based EMS delivery model that was affordable and could be enacted immediately. This model provides two cross-trained EMS firefighters on a transport rescue unit, followed by a cross-trained firefighter paramedic in a staff car who can assist and ride in the rescue ambulance with the patient. If the patient does not need advanced life support, the paramedic is ready to respond immediately to the next emergency call. This model delivers the best medical care available and keeps more firefighters on the street to deliver the highest quality fire protection. This joint partnership has made a positive difference in both fire and EMS delivery services in the community of Erlanger. I congratulate the city of Erlanger, KY, for receiving this Award for Municipal Excellence. By using an innovative approach to address an important community need, they have created this outstanding program. This cutting-edge approach to community emergency response shines as a model for all communities in Kentucky and the United States. This is a true example of Kentucky at its finest and a leadership example to the entire Commonwealth.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to John and Jill Mahan, an exceptional young couple from Kentucky who are the recipients of the American Farm Bureau Young Farmers and Ranchers National Achievement Award. By winning this prestigious award, the Mahans exhibited an unprecedented passion and skill for farming, beating out competition from across the United States. The American Farm Bureau Young Farmers and Ranchers National Achievement Award is presented to young farmers and ranchers across the United States who demonstrate knowledge and achievement in agriculture, as well as a steadfast strength and goal of promoting the agricultural community. With the average age of American farmers increasing steadily as the years go by, it is refreshing to see a young couple like the Mahans embrace the financial and labor-intensive plight that is common in the field of agriculture. The Mahans own 523 acres of a 2,000-acre farm near their home in Lexington, KY. With the changing needs facing farmers, they quickly learned to diversify their production options and create alternatives for income. Currently, the Mahans produce burley tobacco, beef cattle, wheat, soybeans, corn, and alfalfa. This forward-thinking approach to the ever-changing agriculture market is a clear reason this couple experiences continued success in their farming career. I congratulate John and Jill Mahan on this prestigious award from the American Farm Bureau. By winning this national award, they have shown the rest of the Nation the strength of the agricultural community in Kentucky along with their personal dedication to their remarkable careers in farming. They are true examples of Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, this is an important amendment for many of our seniors because it deals with the taxes on Social Security benefits. I have brought this issue before this Chamber before, so it should be familiar to many of my colleagues. When the Social Security program was created, benefits were not taxed. However, in 1983, Congress changed the rules of the game by passing legislation to begin taxing up to 50 percent of a senior's Social Security benefit if their income was over $25,000 for a single individual or $32,000 for a couple. Many seniors across the country were hit with a tax they never anticipated and were forced to send a portion of their Social Security benefits back to the IRS. In 1993, Congress felt taxing 50 percent of benefits wasn't good enough. That year, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a bill that allows 85 percent of a senior's Social Security benefits to be taxed if their income is above $34,000 for a single and $44,000 for a couple. This was known as the ``Clinton senior citizens tax.'' The additional money this tax raises doesn't even go into helping Social Security solvency; instead, it goes into a Medicare Part A program. I was a Member of the House of Representatives in 1993, and I opposed this tax then and I oppose this tax today, 14 years later. Some people think this tax only affects ``rich'' seniors, but that is not the case. In fact, the income thresholds both for the 50-percent tax and the 85-percent tax haven't changed since they were first enacted back in 1983 and 1993. This means more and more seniors are paying these taxes every year. In fact, it is estimated that of the 40 million Social Security beneficiaries, about 15 million--or 39 percent--of seniors pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. Of these, it is estimated that over 9.5 million pay taxes on up to 85 percent of their Social Security benefit. On one hand, we tell seniors to plan and save for retirement and, on the other hand, we tax them for doing that. In the past, there have been efforts by Members of Congress, including myself, to remove this unfair tax. During debate on the Senate 2006 budget resolution, I offered an amendment that provided Congress with the budget resources to remove this unfair tax on benefits. My amendment passed 55 to 45. Unfortunately, the tax reconciliation instructions were scaled back during conference. Today, I am offering another amendment to finally repeal the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits. This means the 85-percent tax tier would be eliminated and the maximum amount of Social Security benefits that could be taxed would be 50 percent. Millions of seniors would be able to keep more of their Social Security benefits, and Congress gets an opportunity to end this unfair tax on seniors. It is also important to point out that the Medicare Program is not harmed by my amendment. As I already said, this tax funds the Medicare program. Therefore, my amendment transfers to Medicare any amount it would have received due to this tax from the general fund. This was an unfair tax on our seniors, and it is time we repeal it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Chair for the time. We will look for a time later to bring up the amendment again.