Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Let me finish my thought. There are a lot of ways to prosecute a crime like that. But when you have legislation that is supported broadly across the country, including by law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, and police organizations across the country, I rely upon their judgment when it comes to what are the tools we need for law enforcement. Amendment No. 2196

Mr. CASEY. Let me just respond to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who has been on this floor for many years holding public agencies accountable, and we appreciate that and I share that concern. I only raised the question about Johnstown, I guess, because as a Senator from Pennsylvania, I want to make sure we are fighting for an important community. I am not saying that is the intent of the legislation. I just wanted to reiterate how much I appreciate the work ethic of that community. Every program that is funded with taxpayer dollars has to be accountable, and I appreciate that. We have an opportunity on this floor to debate programs where we spend significant sums of public dollars. When I was in State government, as Senator Coburn knows, my job for the better part of a decade was to do just that, and it is close to my heart, the kind of accountability I know the Senator is concerned about. But I would hope, in pursuing that, we don't unjustifiably have an impact on a facility that is providing a great benefit for law enforcement well beyond Pennsylvania and, secondly, that we work to be equitable about it. I know that is the intent, but I think we have an honest disagreement about this particular center.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about two matters, but I wish to, first of all, associate myself with the remarks by my distinguished colleague from the State of Missouri. Our first-year class of Senators has worked hard on a lot of issues. She and our colleague from Virginia, Mr. Webb, have worked hard on this issue. I appreciate her comments today, as well as the enlightening exchange and as well as Senator Levin's comments. Amendment No. 2196 Mr. President, I rise to speak first about amendment No. 2196 pertaining to the National Drug Intelligence Center which is located in Johnstown, PA, in southwestern Pennsylvania. This center was created in 1993 and provides Federal, State, and local law enforcement and national security agencies with crucial information about the structure, membership, finances, communications, and activities of drug-trafficking organizations. While a number of Federal agencies play different roles in combating illegal drug use and distribution, the National Drug Intelligence Center, which some know as NDIC, performs a unique role by providing independent information about drug use to other Federal, State, and local agencies. This center produces an annual national drug assessment report which is the principal report by which Federal policymakers evaluate trends in drug use and the overall drug threat faced by this Nation. Given the role drug trafficking plays in financing international terrorism, information compiled by the NDIC about drug distribution plays an important role in combating terrorism worldwide. Much has been made about the fact that the NDIC is located in Johnstown, PA. Let me speak for a few moments about the benefits of locating outside Washington. All the answers to our Nation's problems do not reside here. Sometimes there are a lot of good answers outside Washington. To some, that may be a news bulletin. First, the Johnstown location translates into reduced overhead and lower administrative costs. Second, being outside the beltway allows for greater coordination with State and local law enforcement. The work done by NDIC does not have to be conducted in Washington and, I would argue, the Johnstown location offers greater cost savings for the Federal Government. This amendment comes at an interesting time where recently-- yesterday, actually--the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA, announced that this center, in particular, played key roles in an international case targeting the global underground trade of anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and insulin growth factors, in addition to some other information. The investigation included significant enforcement of illicit underground trafficking of ancillary and counterfeit medications. The investigation represents the largest steroid enforcement action in U.S. history, and it took place in conjunction with enforcement operations in nine countries worldwide. The information provided by this center in Johnstown, PA, played an important role in this investigation. I also wish to add my own feelings with regard to this particular center in Johnstown, PA. I am very proud of the people in Johnstown, PA. They share a heritage of hard work and sacrifice, they have overcome a lot, and they have a tremendous work ethic. Any investment in a city such as Johnstown, PA, is a prudent investment, not just because of economic activity but principally, and most importantly, the important work this center provides for law enforcement. If we want to do comparisons with other places around the country, I am sure that will be constructive. I rise to speak against this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it and also to highlight the value of having this center in the State of Pennsylvania for our Nation. Amendment No. 3035 I wish to change subjects. I have a second set of remarks which I wish to take the time to deliver. We are contemplating voting on legislation that pertains to hate crimes. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act at long last may be voted on in the Senate. There are a lot of reasons for me to stand up not only as a supporter of this legislation but a cosponsor; one of, at last count, 43 bipartisan cosponsors. In the other body, there are more than 170, I am told. This act is simple but profoundly important. First of all, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act will strengthen--strengthen law enforcement's ability to crack down on these kinds of crimes by providing grants to local and State agencies to fight the particular evil that resides in the hearts of those who want to commit crimes based upon this kind of motivation--a motivation of hate, pure and simple. Secondly, in terms of the mechanics of how this will work, this legislation will help the Department of Justice work with local and State law enforcement agencies to assist in the prosecution of these crimes. But beyond the program and beyond the details of a government program lie some very personal stories. One story that all of America knows, but we need to be reminded sometimes about these stories, is one we saw play out in the 1990s. His name was Matthew Shepard. He was born on December 1, 1976, to Judy and Dennis Shepard in Casper, WY. He went to the University of Wyoming and had a great interest in politics and a great interest in the environment. In October of 1998, two men tied him to a split rail fence, tortured and beat him, and left him to die in freezing temperatures. He was found 18 hours later, and he died several days later in October of 1998 at the age of 21. I had the opportunity in September 2005 to meet Matthew Shepard's mother. We had a private meeting where she expressed her deep concern about this crime we see play out across the country. She, obviously, will probably never fully recover from the loss of her son and the way he died, but when I rise to speak about this, I think we have to consider who speaks for that mother if the Senate doesn't stand up and speak with one voice on an issue such as this. This is about combating hate, hate in the hearts of men and women across this country. We talk all the time about people from other parts of the world and how evil they can be, especially the terrorists, but there are examples in our country of real hate. If we do not stamp them out and prosecute vigorously these kinds of crimes, we cannot fully appreciate nor can we fully expect others to appreciate the feeling in our hearts about making sure we treat people with dignity, with respect, and acceptance, but that we do it in the spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood. When such a crime as this happens, I would hope the Senate would do everything possible to fully and vigorously prosecute and sanction anyone who engages in this activity. This legislation, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is one important step to achieving that goal, and I speak in support of that legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to deliver tonight some brief remarks about a matter that a group of freshmen Democrats in this body have worked on together, and that is a bipartisan commission on wartime contracting and to expand the authority of the existing oversight mechanisms to help make sure our taxpayer dollars are spent properly and wisely in Iraq and Afghanistan. I, like the Presiding Officer from the State of Ohio, joined Senators Webb and McCaskill and 23 other Members in cosponsoring this amendment and encourage the full Senate to approve it when it comes to a vote tomorrow. As a former auditor general in Pennsylvania, I know firsthand the need to aggressively root out waste in government. But it is especially egregious to discover waste and abuse and the loss of taxpayer dollars when our troops are in harm's way. I also know that the oversight required to monitor potential abuse is a full-time job. That is why this amendment takes the extraordinary step of creating a new commission, evenly divided between the political parties, to investigate contractor abuses in a thorough manner. Some have argued we should leave this task to our existing committees in the Senate. I and my cosponsors, respectfully disagree with that assessment. As the distinguished Senator from Michigan said earlier today on the floor, our existing committees in the Senate, if they have this responsibility, would grind to a halt if any of those committees had to undertake a full investigation of contractor abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. The commission we propose is deliberately patterned after the Truman Commission--named, of course, after a former President, but at the time the Truman Commission was named for his work in the Senate. The Truman Commission consisted of a group of patriotic Americans that was charged with the mission of studying all financial and military transactions related to the execution of our war effort during World War II. This Commission recognized that it was not only American military might that would win the war in the struggle against the axis powers, but that every dollar saved, every dollar and every resource rescued would materially contribute to the war effort and enable the American Nation to focus its power and its energy on our common enemy at that time. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are very different from World War II, we know that, but the same principles apply when it comes to rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. Every day we read the horror stories about the lack of body armor for our troops. We see that the military has failed to order enough mine resistant ambush protective-- so-called MRAP--vehicles to secure all of our troops. We hear our military stock is in need of urgent replenishment. The United States is a wealthy nation, we know that, but we are not a nation of infinite riches and resources. We have to prioritize our spending and make hard choices. That is why it is so important to crack down on contractor abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot afford to let companies doing business there profit--profit--from fraud and abuse at the same time we need those very dollars for real priorities--our men and women in uniform. In 2005, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that $9 billion spent on Iraq's reconstruction was missing-- unaccounted for--due to inefficiencies and bad management. When I say missing, I literally mean the special inspector general's office was unable to find out what happened to this money. Only last week, the Pentagon disclosed that it is auditing $88 billion in contracts and programs for financial irregularities. Let me repeat that number--$88 billion. This is not a case of a few inappropriate cost overruns in contracts or sloppy bookkeeping in other contracts. Here we know that 40 individuals--40 individuals--and private companies have already been suspended, debarred, or are proposed for debarment. Another 30 investigations await prosecution at the Department of Justice. Contractor abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan is a national scandal. It is an embarrassment. I think it also represents a taking. Every dollar wasted there is a dollar taken away from our troops and our ability to fight the enemy. Most of us supporting this amendment today were elected last year on the promise to change the culture in Washington and to no longer take for granted this type of crass corruption. We shouldn't accept it. We should root it out and do everything possible to make it almost impossible to commit this kind of crime. This legislation establishes an independent commission to comprehensively vet Federal agency contracting for reconstruction, logistical support of coalition forces, and security and intelligence functions in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we are talking about is an independent and bipartisan commission to provide real credibility and real authority in cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse. This amendment also provides significant new powers to the already existing Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to expand his important work and coordinate with this new commission. I had the chance earlier this month to meet with Stuart Bowen, who is that inspector general and in that position. We discussed this amendment, and he agreed it was a good proposal, one that deserved to be implemented to enhance the ability to uncover and prosecute gross abuses of the public trust. No matter where one stands on the war in Iraq, I would hope we could agree on the need to eliminate all waste and fraud and prosecute those who facilitate such fraud and such waste. These actions bring dishonor to our Nation and, in a word, are unpatriotic. We should do everything we can to root out such abuses, and this amendment is an important first step to do that. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3375, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue we have debated for many months on the floor of the Senate. It has been debated in the other body, and it has been debated a lot of places across the country. The issue is children's health insurance. We have a vehicle in place to make sure that not only do the 6.5 million children who are covered already under the program maintain their coverage all across the country, but in particular with this legislation, this bipartisan legislation, the Senate bill, which a couple of weeks ago we saw got 68 votes--the Presiding Officer and others in this body know it is hard to get 68 votes on anything, especially something as significant as children's health insurance. But that was a resounding vote in favor of a policy which will make sure we cover those 6.5 million children but add substantially to that to the point where this legislation would allow us to make sure 10 million American children have health insurance. We have a vehicle. We have a program that works. We have bipartisan consensus from across the board, even beyond parties. We have people who don't agree on much in legislation over the course of a year or two agreeing on this. There is strong support across America for it, certainly in my State of Pennsylvania, certainly in the State of New Jersey. But all across America we see support from virtually every corner. There is only one problem. Despite the bipartisan consensus which exists here and in the other body, the President has threatened and seems determined to veto this legislation. For the life of me, I can't understand that. I can't understand why the President would say that he supports reauthorizing the program, that he thinks the program is good and it works, but he will not support a bipartisan consensus. This makes no sense, especially since States across America have had this kind of insurance in place for many years. In Pennsylvania, we have about 160,000 children covered right now, maybe a little more. We could increase that substantially over the next 5 years to add another 140,000 or more. So instead of having 160,000 kids covered, we get 300,000 children in Pennsylvania covered. We know this doesn't end the discussion. We know there will still be children who won't be covered. Even if we get to that 10 million number, we know there will be millions of children, maybe as many as 5 million, who are not covered. So we can't rest just on the foundation of this legislation. I plead with the President, don't veto legislation that will provide 10 million American children with the health care they should have, the health care their parents and their communities have a right to expect but also the health care for children in the dawn of their lives which, beyond what it does for that child, which is obvious, I think there is a strong moral argument, but even beyond that argument, what this will do for the American economy years into the future. These children, if they get the kind of health care and early learning we all support, will do better in school. They will achieve more. They will learn more. And if they learn more, they can earn more. We know there are CEOs across the country who understand this investment in our children is an investment in our economic future. I join a lot of people in this Chamber in both parties who worked very hard to get 68 votes for this legislation. There was a lot of tough negotiating in the Senate Finance Committee, where the vote, I think, was 17 to 4 way back in the summer. There is the work that has been done in the House and the work that has been done between both bodies to get this right. I ask anyone who has an interest in this legislation across the country--or anywhere someone is following this issue--to urge the President not to veto children's health insurance that will cover 10 million American children. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment that I have filed to H.R. 1545, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that an appropriate site be established within the Arlington National Cemetery for a small memorial to the memory of the 40 members of the U.S. Armed Forces who perished in an airplane crash at Bakers Creek, Australia, on June 14, 1943. A similar provision is already included in the House version of the fiscal year 2008 DOD authorization bill, and so it is important for the Senate to declare its support for this worthy cause. On June 14, 1943, a B-17C Flying Fortress aircraft was transporting a group of U.S. servicemen from the city of Mackay in Queensland, Australia. The 35 servicemen, accompanied by six crew members, were returning to the jungle battlefields of New Guinea to continue their brave fight against the enemy Japanese forces. They had spent approximately 10 days in Mackay enjoying a much needed break at American Red Cross rest and recreation facilities, whose location in Australia was not widely known at the time. The aircraft lifted off into a fog and, 5 minutes after takeoff, crashed 5 miles south at Bakers Creek, killing everyone on board except for a sole survivor. To this day, the cause of the crash remains a mystery. History books, to a certain extent, have obscured this event even though it remains the deadliest plane crash in Australian history. There is a reason for that. The press was not allowed to report the crash when it occurred-- owing to wartime censorship laws. The relatives of those who perished received telegrams from the U.S. War Department only stating that their loved ones had been killed somewhere in the South West Pacific. Secrecy shrouded this plane crash because the U.S. military was not eager to either tip off nearby Japanese forces on the presence of U.S. troops in Australia or feed enemy propaganda. For that reason, this plane crash that has proved to be the worst single airplane crash in the South West Pacific theater during World War II--remained an official secret for 15 years after the end of the war. The amendment before the Senate today would seek to provide a lasting tribute to the bravery and dedication of these young American men. It would establish the sense of the Congress that a permanent memorial, modest in size and nature, should be located at an appropriate place in Arlington National Cemetery. For too long, the truth on how these young men died in the service of their Nation has been hidden away--albeit for understandable reasons. Next June 14, 2008 will mark the 65th anniversary of the forgotten tragedy. Now is the time to mark their sacrifices with the proper level of respect and reverence. The memorial to honor the lives and sacrifice of these 40 American heroes has already been constructed, yet it lies on foreign soil. The memorial, built by Codori Memorials of Gettysburg, PA, today stands on the grounds of the Australian Embassy here in our Nation's Capital. It is a very small memorial--5 feet 2 inches high and 4 feet wide at the base, occupying only 5\1/2\ square feet of land. We thank Ambassador Dennis Richardson and the Government of Australia for so graciously hosting this memorial; we are reminded of the long-standing alliance between our two great nations. Yet it is time for the official memorial to these American heroes to come home, to be welcomed at Arlington National Cemetery where it can take its rightful place among our fallen heroes. Each of the 40 Americans who perished in this crash is a true hero who gave their lives to the cause of our Nation. To date, the Bakers Creek Memorial Association has located the families of 38 of the 40 casualties. They continue to search for relatives of the remaining two soldiers to notify them of the specifics surrounding their loved one's deaths. I wish to claim prerogative on behalf of my home State to take note of the six Pennsylvanians killed in this tragic crash. Each of their families still resides in Pennsylvania. Their names and hometowns are as follows: PFC James E. Finney, Erie, PA; TSGT Alfred H. Frezza, Altoona, PA; SGT Donald B. Kyper, Hesston, PA; PFC Frank S. Penksa, Moscow, PA; PFC Anthony Rudnick, Haddon Heights, PA; CPL Raymond H. Smith, Oil City, PA I am joined in this effort by Senator Specter. It is time to do right by these forgotten American heroes and give them and their families a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery that is worthy of their valor, worthy of their honor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1585, that the amendments to the substitute be laid aside, and the Senate proceed to the Hatch amendment No. 3047; that the cloture motion at the desk on the amendment be considered as having been filed and reported, and the Senate then resume the regular order regarding the bill, and then return to morning business.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, September 26, when cloture is filed on the motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 976, that it be considered to have been filed on Tuesday, and the mandatory quorum be waived, notwithstanding rule XXII.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration, and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 325.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 320, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 290, S. 456.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute amendment be considered; the Feinstein-Hatch amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the committee substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business today, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m., Monday, September 24; that on Monday following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and Senator Byrd recognized for 25 minutes of the majority's time, and the Republicans controlling the final portion; that at 3 p.m. the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1495, as provided for under a previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, September 24, at 3 p.m., the Senate turn to the consideration of the conference report on the water resources bill, H.R. 1495; that the time until 5:45 p.m. be divided for debate as follows: 30 minutes under Senator Feingold's control, with the remainder of the time under the control of the two leaders or their designees; and that at 5:45 p.m. the Senate, without any intervening action or debate, vote on passage of the conference report.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the war in Iraq, and in particular to speak about an amendment that we will be voting on tomorrow, the Reed-Levin amendment. I want to note, first of all, that this amendment has been offered before. We voted on similar amendments over the course of this year, and I am glad we are voting on it again because I think the American people, time and again, have told us it is time, at long last, to change the course in Iraq and to focus on a new policy. Sometimes we talk about this amendment and we fail to mention something about the sponsors of this amendment. We are talking about two Members of the Senate with broad experience in this body, tremendous years of public service, but also a lot of years on the Armed Services Committee and other committees that have informed their judgment. The two Members of the Senate, Jack Reed and Carl Levin, I am speaking about, have both been to Iraq innumerable times, learning about what is happening there and focused in a real way on helping us get this policy right. Our troops have done everything we asked of them, time and again. Every mission, every battle, they have done their job. It is about time the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States do our job to change the course in Iraq and to focus on a new policy. Fortunately, this amendment, I think, has tremendous support in the Senate. We have already seen this before. Much more than a majority of Senators will vote for this amendment. I hope we can get it to 60 votes at long last. Let's talk about it for a moment. This is a very basic amendment, which fundamentally says we have to change the course in Iraq; we have to begin to redeploy our combat forces so the Iraqi forces can takeover, ultimately. But it also focuses in a real way on transitioning this mission. Our mission should be about a couple of things our soldiers have already proven time and again that they do very well. The mission should be transitioned to a much more focused mission: First of all, to hunt down and kill terrorists in Iraq. That is fundamental to our mission. Our mission has to include training of the Iraqi security forces. We see in report after report, especially at the level 1 of readiness, the ability for the Iraqi forces to independently, without help from American forces, take over the fight against the enemy. We have to make sure that training moves forward much more aggressively and in a much more focused way than we have seen already. But that is not happening. So we need to train the Iraqi security forces. Finally, we have to make sure we protect our troops and their infrastructure and also the civilian personnel we have in Iraq. We have seen all those personnel doing a great job as well--from the State Department and other parts of our Government. But if we can focus, as we should, on a redeployment of our combat forces and focus on the terrorists, focus on training, and focus on diplomacy--which I will talk about at length a few minutes later--that has to be the mission we should focus on in Iraq. That is what Reed-Levin does, among other things. It focuses at long last on a mission that we know our troops can continue to achieve. But also it focuses in a real way on transitioning this mission and focusing on a redeployment of our forces, our combat forces. I think some of what has formed the way I vote and the way lot of us vote is our time in Iraq. I spent a day and a half in Iraq. Some people can say: What can you learn in a day and a half? You can learn a lot about Iraq in that short amount of time. I learned, not just in the meetings we had but a good part of our time in Iraq--Senator Durbin and I were there in the early part of August--a good part of our time was outside the Green Zone. You get a sense, a fleeting sense, a glimpse, but you get a sense of the insecurity of Baghdad when you are outside of that Green Zone. I have heard a lot of discussion about things that have been happening in Anbar. Frankly, our marines have done a great job there and our troops have done a great job in Baghdad. But Baghdad is a lot more complicated than Anbar, and we should recognize that. It is a lot more difficult assignment going forward. What do we see in Baghdad? Every time you go outside the Green Zone you travel in a convoy. We were given great protection, not only by those who were traveling with us but also by people from the State Department and others. We appreciated that. But you wear body armor wherever you go--inside the vehicle, outside the vehicle. You wear a combat helmet, a Kevlar helmet. You are surrounded by people with weapons to protect you. So you get a sense of the insecurity there. Then, when we were traveling to the President's house our second day there, almost the entire trip to President Talabani's house where he resides was in a military convoy with helicopters flying overhead to protect us. When I got on a Blackhawk helicopter to go from an airport to a patrol base outside the city of Baghdad where our forces are doing a great job against al-Qaida, what do we have to do? We get into a Blackhawk helicopter and fly at a very high rate of speed over the rooftops to avoid being attacked. We saw in the last couple of weeks what happened to a C-130, with distinguished Members of the Senate, some of them here on the floor today, being fired upon by the enemy. You see the insecurity all around you. You see the insecurity when we were meeting at the patrol base and a missile landed and we heard the explosion 400 yards from us. What I am trying to convey is the sense we had of the insecurity of Baghdad. It is a real presence there, that feeling of insecurity. It is a fact. We should recognize this mission is very difficult for our troops. They have met every assignment. What we have to do is give our troops a policy and a strategy which matches their valor. We don't have that right now. The President should start acting more like a Commander in Chief instead of someone who is reading talking points for his side of the argument. When I was listening to the President the other night, unfortunately, what he conveyed to me was a sense that he was selling a message instead of leading. I don't think he has led in a way that has brought this Congress together, frankly. It is about time we had a mission and a strategy that matched the brilliance and the valor of our troops. When I was in Iraq, we would hear these phrases from the Iraqi leaders: We need more time. You need to be patient in America. I heard this phrase I have never heard before, we need ``strategic patience.'' I still don't know what that means, but the Iraqi political leaders were telling us that over and over again. I have to say, on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania and on behalf of the 175 families who lost someone in Iraq already, I have to say to these Iraqi leaders: We have shown strategic patience, whatever that means. We have shown patience and forbearance and our troops and their families have sacrificed over and over again. It is about time for you, Mr. or Mrs. Iraqi Leader, to get your act together and take overt responsibility of taking on this enemy for the next generation, taking the corruption out of your police force, and governing your country so you can have a government of national unity. But all they ask for is patience. Whenever the Iraqi political leaders ask for patience, the one who pays most of the price is not anybody in Congress. It isn't anybody in the White House. The people who pay the price are the troops and their families--over and over again. We are reaching the end of our patience, I think I would say and have said to those Iraqi leaders. Finally--I don't wish to spend too much time on our trip--one of the most poignant parts of our trip, and it has connection and relevance to what we voted on today and yesterday and will tomorrow, is the sense you get from our troops. You know the bravery of those troops--troops from Pennsylvania, from small towns in Bradford County, way up in northeastern Pennsylvania, troops from the inner city of Philadelphia, who were in the same mission, sitting at the same table to have what goes for lunch over there--very simple food that they have to eat every day. But what I got from our troops was a real sense of commitment, a real sense of focus on their mission. We have to do everything we can to make sure they have the resources they need. But a lot of our troops are being asked to referee a civil war. No American fighting men or woman has ever been asked to referee someone else's civil war. We have asked them to do that. I heard language in this Chamber, and we heard it from the President--he talks about victory, victory, victory. He uses phrases such as that and some people here have used those phrases. Do you know what. I think the more accurate phrase and the more descriptive, to describe what is happening there, is what Ambassador Crocker said to me in Baghdad. I challenged him and General Petraeus, and they both said: No, that is not the right language. What the mission has to be is to stabilize that Government, not to have some Hollywood victory that sets our troops up for something not achievable. Our troops have done their job. It is about time we have the right policy and the right language that matches the valor of our troops. We see what these troops and their families have sacrificed, and we see some of the horror of battle. We went into the combat support hospital, right in the middle of Baghdad. You see in that hospital doctors and nurses, enlisted men and women who are doing that job 24 hours a day under the most difficult circumstances. In one case, taking care of a little child, a girl who had been left in the streets of Baghdad when her parents were killed. These doctors and nurses were ministering to her, just like they minister to the troops who come in from the battlefield. We think of a lot of lessons from history. We remember what Abraham Lincoln said when he was talking about the Civil War. He talked about what happens to those who die or are wounded in battle--especially those who die. He talked, at the time, about making sure we are doing everything possible to remember and to help the families of those who perished. As Abraham Lincoln said: `` . . . to help him who has borne the battle, and his widow and his orphan.'' When we debate on this floor about this policy, debate about veterans health care, we are trying to do our best to enact policy that is supportive of those troops who have perished in battle and those families. We have to make sure we do everything possible to get this policy right. I believe a giant step forward to doing that would be to support the Reed-Levin amendment and to support other measures that help us change our course. We lost an opportunity yesterday when we didn't get to 60 votes on the Webb amendment. That was a bad day in the Senate. But we have to keep trying, and we will try again tomorrow on this vote. I wish to conclude with some remarks about an amendment I have offered along with Senator Murkowski, an amendment which focuses on something we all talk about a lot but, frankly, the administration has not done nearly enough about, and that is diplomacy. This amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment expressing a very simple notion that it is time we implement a diplomatic surge that matches any military surge. It sends a crystal-clear message to the White House: The time for sustained regional diplomacy is now, and it deserves the highest priority of the President, President Bush, and the Secretary of State, Secretary Rice. We all recognize in hindsight how diplomacy was critically missing from the strategic planning of the United States in the runup to this war. We all know that now. That is almost not even debated anymore. Yet we have paid little heed to diplomacy in the frustrating years since our initial invasion. The United States continues to treat Iraq as some kind of isolated box, failing to recognize the complex linkages between the various sectarian groups inside Iraq and their patrons and supporters in the broader Middle East region. It is time we made Iraq less America's problem and more a responsibility for its regional neighbors and the international community. Let me highlight quickly the elements of this amendment, very specific steps. First of all, the United States should implement a comprehensive diplomatic offensive. It has not been done yet. No. 2, the United States should bring together Iraq's neighbors through a regional conference or other mechanism. That has not been done yet-- part of it has, but it has not been done as it should. No. 3 definitely has not been done, especially when it pertains to the President: The President and the Secretary of State should invest their personal time and energy in these diplomatic efforts. This cannot be done by proxy or surrogate. They have to be engaged fully. In addition to that, the President, I believe, and Senator Murkowski believes, should appoint a high-level Presidential envoy to the region. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations should seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq to engage the political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq. Finally, the United States should more directly press Iraq's neighbors to open fully operating embassies in Baghdad. I will conclude with that. There is so much that has to be done on diplomacy and there is so much more we have to do. We have to keep debating this issue, keep pushing forward to achieve a better policy. I believe two parts of that are the enactment of the Reed-Levin amendment, first of all, and in addition to that the amendment that I and Senator Murkowski have worked together on, to have a real diplomatic surge in Iraq. I yield the floor.