Supplemental Appropriations
Floor Speech
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS -- (Senate - May 01, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there have been comments on the floor about the fact that in just 2 hours the President of the United States will have an opportunity to sign or veto a bill which literally will affect the lives of 150,000 soldiers and their families, if not every American. It is a bill that was passed by the House and Senate, with bipartisan votes in both bodies, and sent to the President. It fully funds the troops in Iraq, giving them all the resources they need, and more, so they can execute this war and their duties in a safe manner.
But it also does something significant; it starts to change the mission in Iraq. We are in the fifth year of this war. We have lost 3,351 American lives. I respect very much the Senator from Wyoming. He tries to make a point that it is not a civil war. My understanding of a civil war is when people of the same nation are at war with one another.
That, sadly, is the reality of what is going on in Iraq today--Iraqis killing one another while Americans stand in the midst of the crossfire. Had the President of the United States come to this Congress in October of 2002 and suggested we send 150,000 soldiers into Iraq for the purpose of refereeing a civil war or a religious war that had its origins in 14 centuries of anger, had he said to us we must stay as long as 5 years and spend $500 billion and risk thousands of American lives, with no end in sight, what were the chances we would have passed that resolution? None. That is not what the President told us.
He told us Iraq was a threat to the United States of America with weapons of mass destruction, and nuclear weapons, that somehow they had been in concert with al-Qaida, that led to 9/11. None of those things turned out to be true--not one of them.
On that basis, we authorized the President to go to war, and he decided to take a preventive course of action--not preemptive but preventive course of action--and invade this country before they threatened the United States. That is what we are in today.
Within 2 hours, the President will pick up a pen and have a chance to start bringing this to an end. If he signs this bill we have sent to him, it will mean that American soldiers can start coming home and that, equally important, the Iraqis understand it is now their country, their war, and their future, that they have to put their lives on the line and not rely on the bravery of our soldiers to keep their country intact.
If the President vetoes this bill, exactly the opposite message goes to the Iraqis. Its message: Continue business as usual. Continue waiting out the political opposition, not resolving your differences, really allowing this religious or civil war to become even worse.
The month of April was the deadliest month for American soldiers this year. We continue to see thousands of Iraqis killed each month in this country. The President, though he is limited in support for this position, continues to argue that with just a few more American soldiers, a little longer period of time, some more money, everything is going to get better. Many of us are skeptical. The American people believe--and I concur with their belief--we do need a timetable to start bringing American troops home on a responsible, reasonable basis.
I hope the President will reconsider. I hope he will sign this bill. I hope the troops will be funded and the direction of this war will change.
Madam President, this bill is for the Food and Drug Administration's reauthorization. This is an agency which is often overlooked. Madam President, $1.7 billion a year in a Federal budget is not a huge amount of money. There are many other agencies with less responsibility and more resources. The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for really determining the safety of so many things American families take for granted: when you are buying food, when you are buying drugs, when you are buying over-the-counter medicines. Many of the appliances you buy really have to be tested to be safe by the Food and Drug Administration. We count on this small agency to do a very big job and a job that gets bigger by the year.
The bill that is before us is basically the law which authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to do its business. I am glad we brought it to the floor. I salute Senator Enzi on the Republican side and Senator Kennedy on the Democratic side for their leadership.
The Food and Drug Administration is an essential guardian of the public's health and safety in America. In recent years, their reputation has been at risk because of incidents of drug safety problems and questions about their independence. The FDA has been faulted for neglecting its drug safety responsibilities and for failing to respond to concerns raised by its own drug safety specialists.
Experts have warned that the FDA does not have adequate authority to pull dangerous drugs off the market, mandate changes in drug labels, or sanction drug companies that do not monitor drug safety.
The most glaring example of a drug safety problem is the handling of Vioxx, a painkiller that was found to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke and was used by 20 million people across America. Merck was aware--the company that made Vioxx--that product raised the risk of cardiovascular problems, and they continued to market it, nevertheless, long before it stopped selling the drug in 2004. The episode has raised serious questions about FDA's ability to react quickly to signs of safety problems with drugs already on the market.
Listen to what one of FDA's own drug safety experts said in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. I quote:
I would argue that the FDA, as currently configured, is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenseless.
That is quite a statement. It troubles me.
That concern of that individual does not stand alone. A survey of FDA scientists conducted last year by the Union of Concerned Scientists found the following: 47 percent of FDA scientists said their FDA office is less effective than it was 5 years ago; nearly 40 percent said the FDA is not acting effectively to protect public health; more than one-third of FDA scientists said FDA officials care more about approving new drugs and devices than ensuring they are safe; and 15 percent said they personally have been inappropriately asked to exclude or alter information or conclusions for nonscientific reasons. That is a horrible comment on an agency with the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration.
Our priority must be to take this reauthorization as an opportunity to change the FDA. The bill does that. It restores balance between timely approval of innovative drugs and safety and effectiveness.
Problems with drug safety in recent years highlight the limits of FDA's ability to monitor and respond to safety problems that arise after approval. Safety problems may not be detected prior to FDA approval because the clinical trials FDA relies upon often involve only a few thousand people.
This bill, S. 1082, responds to this problem by making postapproval monitoring of drugs a core responsibility of the FDA, strengthening and clarifying the tools it has to make their products safer. The bill requires active monitoring for drug safety problems through the use of Federal and private databases. It creates a system for approving drugs with a specific strategy for evaluating and mitigating their risks. It promotes greater transparency by disclosing information on clinical trials.
These and other provisions in this bipartisan bill will help to restore public confidence in the FDA. S. 1082 will help FDA fulfill its crucial and complex mission. I look forward to supporting it.
One of the things most people do not realize is the major responsibility the Food and Drug Administration has for the food we eat.
Now, let me tell you at the outset, I am not capable, having served on Capitol Hill for a few years, to describe to the people who follow this debate what we call the food safety system in America. Imagine, if you will, that we have 12 to 15 different Federal agencies responsible for food safety. Imagine 30 different laws and legal standards for food safety, 40 or 50 different committees on Capitol Hill with jurisdiction, hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists and special interest groups hovering over this whole scene. Add to that thousands of Government workers and bureaucrats who are protecting their turf, and we have a system that is virtually out of control--not just when it comes to drugs, as important as they are, but when it comes to the food we eat.
I thank Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi and others for partnering with me on an amendment which I will offer as soon as I am given the green light by the chairman and the ranking member on the issue of food safety. I thank them for working with my staff for several months to come up with language to the deal with some serious challenges.
For too long, we have gone without updating the resources and authorities of the FDA in the area of food safety. I think our system has broken down. Now is the time for an appropriate amendment to close some of the gaps we have in our current system.
In the larger picture, I have been working on this issue for a long time. I said, over 10 years ago, we need a single food safety system.
I see Senator Lieberman from Connecticut on the floor. His House colleague, Congresswoman ROSA DELAURO, herself a victim of food poisoning at an early age, has been my ally in this effort. We believe a single food safety system, based on science and not on politics, is the only answer. We need to do that and do it soon.
The amendment which I am going to offer does not reach that level. It does not achieve all of the goals we wanted to on a legal basis, but it moves us forward.
How important an issue is food safety? The Centers for Disease Control estimates that as many as 76 million people suffer from food poisoning each year. Thirty-two thousand Americans will be hospitalized each year for food poisoning; 5,000 will die. With emerging pathogens, an aging population, and an increasing volume of food imports, this situation isn't going to improve without decisive action.
I agree with Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi that we should proceed with the broad issue of food safety within general order, and I appreciate their willingness to work with me. The amendment is not what I hoped for in creating a single food safety agency, but it is a step forward.
The most recent news, of course, is about pet food, but believe me, it hasn't been that long ago when we talked about salmonella-contaminated peanut butter and E. coli-contaminated spinach. If it seems as if these food crises are occurring more frequently, they are. We may have the safest food supply in the world, but the fact is, every parent, every family wants to have peace of mind that when they buy something at the grocery store, they can put it on the table, feed it to their family, and no one will get sick. There are questions that are being raised almost on a daily basis about whether we can have that confidence.
The issue that came up recently was on pet food. Batches of wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate contaminated with a chemical called melamine were imported from China by several shipping companies. We just learned over the last few days from stories printed in the press that melamine is regularly added to animal feed in China.
Why would they add a chemical called melamine to something they are going to feed to livestock? Well, it is a way to increase the value of the product. If there is more protein in the feed, then they can charge a higher price. When the food product is tested to see if there is protein, you look for the presence of nitrogen. The chemical, melamine, when added, tests for higher nitrogen levels, therefore they argue higher protein levels, therefore they argue they should be paid more. So it is an economic fraud. They have argued that this is a product that doesn't hurt people. We are not sure of that, but we do know that the animals that died as a result of contaminated pet food, some of them were found to have melamine in their system. It is a serious question as to whether it is toxic.
We know now that this pet food contamination has resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 animals across America. This contaminated product came into America without inspection or without suspicion. The FDA did not have a memorandum of understanding with China or a certification that their standards for food safety were even close to those of the United States. The product made its way from the importer ChemNutra into various manufacturers of pet food. Menu Foods is a Canadian company. They make pet food under a dozen different labels. They learned on February 20 there was a problem. How did they know there was a problem? The cats and dogs told them. They stopped eating their food and they started getting sick.
So you own a company that has dozens of different pet food labels, and you notice that animals are getting sick. What is the responsible thing for a company to do at that time? Pull the product off the shelf and notify the Federal Government. They waited 3 weeks before they sent out a notification. By the time the Food and Drug Administration learned about this, there were millions of cans of pet food and other products under different labels spread all across America with this contaminated product. Three weeks they waited. Why? Because the law does not currently require them to report on a timely basis.
I asked the FDA last week: What is the penalty against Menu Foods for waiting 3 weeks? They said: Well, we are considering. We are talking to our counsel. We will get back to you. Months have passed. Nothing has happened. Menu Foods waited 3 weeks instead of reporting on a timely basis. By then, the product was all across America.
In the case of rice protein concentrate, there is less certainty. Importer Wilbur Ellis purchased product from the Binzhou Futian Company in China. It then distributed the product to a host of companies that produce pet food. These brands and labels have been recalled in a haphazard way over the past 3 weeks--again, delays in reporting. The FDA has even refused to name several companies for more than a week trying to get to the bottom of this investigation because the records process is so broken down at this agency.
One or more of the manufacturers sold some refuse pet food that it produced using contaminated product to hog farms in California and other States. These farms fed their hogs the contaminated feed, some of which was sold to consumers and much more of it has been quarantined and is slated for destruction.
In addition, we just learned this week that 38 poultry farms in Indiana received contaminated feed. So the plot thickens, and the safety issue grows as we wonder if what was originally pet food is now being fed to livestock, and if humans consume the food what impact it will have.
There is a mystery importer involved as well from China that we have heard about but we can't identify yet. Supposedly this second importer purchased rice protein from the Chinese firm in question in larger quantities than the firm Wilbur Ellis.
In terms of the investigation in China, the FDA said: We want to send inspectors to China to see what they are sending to us. Well, first the Chinese said: We deny you the visas for your FDA inspectors. Imagine that. Millions of dollars worth of foodstuffs coming in from China, contaminated and poisoned, killing off pets, threatening human consumption, and when we say to the Chinese that we want to take a look at their production facilities, they denied us visas. I joined with Congresswoman DeLauro and sent a letter to the Chinese Embassy, and they reversed their position, offering the visas. We have to make it clear to China and every other country that if they want to do business with the United States, they will do it on our terms when it comes to health and safety. We will never allow them to compromise the safety and health of American citizens in the process.
The amendment I am going to offer--and I hope it will be accepted--does several things based on what we have learned over the last 6 weeks. First, during this recall, consumers, veterinarians, and retailers, among others, expressed concern about the scope of the recall, what products were included, or what not to feed to domestic animals. The FDA was slow, uneven, and inconsistent in sharing information on the recall. While there are mechanisms in place to proactively track human food-borne illnesses and then share information, no similar system exists for companion animals.
I visited the FDA pet food recall Web site the day before the March 12 Agriculture appropriations hearing and found a jumble of corporate press releases. It was virtually unintelligible. I said to the FDA: Can't you make this information clearer so consumers can have the information they need to purchase these products? They took it to heart and made the changes. That is good.
In addition, following the recall, the FDA checked the records of companies such as Banfield, the largest privately owned veterinary hospital chain in the United States. The records kept showed a statistically significant increase in the instances of renal failures of cats. A system in place to track these events might have caught something like melamine earlier. So the amendment creates an early warning and surveillance system for companion animals and directs the Secretary to work with professional organizations, veterinarians, and others to disseminate information.
While we are at it, the amendment would direct the FDA, in cases of both pet food and human food, to keep up-to-date, comprehensive, searchable recall lists on their Web site.
Second, the amendment closes the gap that FDA itself identified in an earlier draft framework posted on its Web site in December of 2006. The guidances and practices that govern the pet food industry are currently generated by the American Association of Feed Control Officers, known as AAFCO. The guidelines on best practices and ingredient lists are updated annually and implemented on a voluntary basis by manufacturers and State departments of agriculture. However, there is no requirement under the law for States to adopt these practices, and they don't have the force of Federal guidelines. Inspections are not coordinated State to State, and some States have different standards. While the FDA participates in the AAFCO process, it does not provide a list of ingredients and additives. AAFCO's list is more comprehensive than the FDA's. Our amendment would direct the FDA to work with AAFCO and other stakeholders to give these guidelines the force of law.
Third, the amendment closes a loophole that this contamination has exposed with regard to our imports of food. The source of the contamination we know of was wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate originating in China. Neither shipment was inspected by the FDA. If you have some peace of mind or belief that a Federal inspector is watching food as it comes into the United States, the odds are 99 to 1 you are wrong. Only about 1 or 1.5 percent of all the shipments of food products coming into the United States are actually inspected.
As imports have increased the number of inspectors have decreased. This is an indication of U.S. food imports by country. As you can see, there have been dramatic increases in these fiscal years showing that the amount of food coming into the United States is increasing in volume. The number of inspectors who watch for this food to protect our families and consumers across America just hasn't kept pace.
In 2003, the United States imported $45.6 billion worth of agricultural products--in 2003; today, $64 billion. Agricultural imports from China have almost doubled in that period of time, from $1.2 billion to $2.1 billion. Due to flat budgets and increasing responsibilities, the overall number of FDA inspectors looking at these shipments and at domestic food processors has actually decreased from 2003 to the present time; imports up, inspectors down.
Are we surprised at what has happened? The FDA doesn't have the resources or the authority to make sure what we are bringing in from overseas is safe. We need to tackle it in a larger bill.
What our amendment does is close the loophole by improving data collection and reporting. It creates an FDA database of food adulterants that would be filled by FDA inspectors as well as importers of food. The extra series of data points would better pick out trends and help FDA do a better risk-based inspection job. It also creates a system in which adulterations are reported quickly so as to prevent contamination from spreading. This would have helped in this most recent case, but because of delays in reporting it led to an expansion of recalled product into dozens of different companies and got perilously close to the human food chain. The data would then be used by the Secretary to issue import alerts, blocking similar risky products.
I have also pursued a separate track on the issue of resources for FDA by sending a letter to Chairman Kohl of Wisconsin and Senator Bennett of Utah requesting additional resources for food inspection at the Food and Drug Administration. I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort.
Also, I am filing an amendment that would authorize a study on user fees for food producers. It is vital that we explore various revenue streams for the FDA in light of the shortage of resources they have for inspection.
The last two items in my amendment are a sense of the Senate and a clarification that companies are required to maintain records and make them accessible to the FDA as part of an investigation. This latter item would prevent delays that keep contaminations from being known as quickly as possible. In the case of recalled peanut butter this past winter, an FDA report showed that inspectors were denied documents when they were requested. The language would clarify that when the FDA makes the inspection, it will have access to those documents needed for purposes of safeguarding the food supply.
The sense-of-the-Senate language goes beyond this amendment and this bill, stating that it is vital to update resources, direction, and authorities of the FDA to better safeguard our food supply. The sense of the Senate directs the FDA to work with our trading partners to establish cooperative agreements.
Several weeks ago, Robert Brackett, Director of the FDA's food arm, said:
These outbreaks point to a need to completely overhaul the way the agency does business.
I am thankful the sponsors of this legislation for the reauthorization of the Food and Drug Administration understand that expanding the scope of our debate on this bill to include food safety is overdue.
Mr. Brackett went on to say: We have 60,000 to 80,000 facilities that we are responsible for in any given year. We have to get out of the 1950s paradigm.
Dr. Stephen Sundlof, Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine of FDA, which has jurisdiction for pet food, implied as much when he was quoted last month as saying:
In this case, we're going to have to look at this after the dust settles and determine if there is something from a regulatory standpoint that we could have done differently to prevent this incident from occurring.
I couldn't agree more. This is a situation where we need one food safety agency, not driven by the politics of Washington but driven by science, to make sure the food fed to our children, the food fed to our pets, or any food served in America is as safe as possible. As we import more food with fewer inspectors, the risk increases.
I might add that we have looked at the pet food contamination and others from the aspect of greed and negligence. In the instance of China, they were adulterating their product with a chemical so that it was worth more in the marketplace. That is economic fraud. In the instance of spinach and peanut butter, we are dealing with negligence--negligence that results in a deadly product being sold across America. But we can't stop there, unfortunately. In the world we live in, with the vulnerabilities we have, food could also become a terrorist weapon. That may sound far-fetched to some, but when Governor Tommy Thompson left the Bush Cabinet, he said in parting that he found it hard to imagine why the terrorists had not attacked our food supply. He said he worried about it on a regular basis.
We have to have inspection standards in place that mitigate against greed and negligence and the possibility of someone intentionally contaminating our food supply, causing terrible suffering and death across America.
That is why this amendment is a step in the direction for a safer food supply. I sincerely hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support my efforts.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, about 1 hour ago, the President of the United States vetoed the supplemental appropriations bill for the war in Iraq. It was a bill that we have worked on in Congress since its arrival in the middle of February. It was the subject of lengthy deliberations. There were long debates on the floor of the House and Senate. There was a lot of compromise that led to the final work product and a bipartisan vote which sent it to the President.
There were people who were skeptical as to whether the Senate and the House of Representatives could rise to this challenge. In a nation that is so divided on so many political issues, in a nation where the war in Iraq is the biggest issue by far, there were serious doubts as to whether this Congress, with scant majorities of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, could produce a bill for President Bush to consider.
Congress rose to that occasion. With the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the leadership of our majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, we produced a bill which attracted not only the overwhelming support of the Democratic caucus but also the support of Republican Senators who joined us in passing this bill.
It was our hope that our work product would be considered seriously by the President. It was sent to him this afternoon. A few hours after receiving it, the President vetoed it and announced his veto in a public press conference.
I am disappointed. The President had a chance to sign a bill that would have funded the troops in this war. More importantly, it was a bill he could have signed which could have changed the course of this war--something that is long overdue.
I listened in my office as the President gave his veto message to the American people. It was short, direct but, in many ways inadequate when you consider the awesome responsibility we face in Congress and in the White House.
The President referred to our timetable to start bringing American troops home as a date for failure. It is ironic the President would make that statement on the fourth anniversary of his appearance on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier under a banner announcing, 4 years ago, that our mission was accomplished. For the President to announce success and failure, accomplishment and lack of accomplishment, leaves something to be desired after that experience 4 years ago.
I am particularly troubled as well by the President's notion of what this bill was all about. You see, he said, at one point, for us to set a timetable to bring American troops home would--in the President's words--``demoralize the Iraqi people.'' Those were his words.
Mr. President, excuse me, but I am not as interested in building up the morale of the Iraqi people as I am in inspiring the leaders of the nation to stand up and lead. For too long now, with the protection of the U.S. troops, this Iraqi Government has failed to make even basic progress in taking control of their country. They have failed to address the key political issues that would lead to stability.
So the President is arguing that if we continue to send 150,000 or more American soldiers to risk their lives, it will build up the morale of the Iraqi people to seek nationhood, stability, and peace. So we expect American soldiers to stand in this crossfire of a bitter religious and civil war, hoping that the Iraqi people will be inspired enough to ask their Government for leadership?
Mr. President, 3,351 American soldiers have fought and died in Iraq, as I stand here today. Mr. President, 3,351 American lives should be enough to inspire the Iraqi people and their Government. How many more American lives will it take for that inspiration the President is looking for?
I am troubled by this notion that unless we will sacrifice our treasure and the lives of our brave soldiers, the Iraqis cannot rise to the occasion and lead themselves out of this morass.
I also listened to the President when he characterized the money that we added in Congress to his budget request. He called it--and I will quote--``billions in nonemergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror.''
I wonder if the President's staff put the bill in front of him for him to take a close look at, in the few hours he had it before vetoing the bill.
Is the President arguing to the American people that providing $2 billion more in equipment to keep our troops safe in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror?
Is the President arguing that the $1 billion in our supplemental appropriations bill--the $1 billion to replenish National Guard equipment destroyed and lost in the war in Iraq--that $1 billion has nothing to do with the war on terror?
Is the President arguing that the $2 billion in this bill for military hospitals--such as Walter Reed, so we do not relegate our fallen soldiers and those who were injured to a flophouse motel across Georgia Avenue from Walter Reed Hospital--is he arguing that the $2 billion that is in the bill for military hospitals has nothing to do with the war on terror?
Perhaps the President is not aware of the fact there was $2 billion in this bill for veterans hospitals all across America, for those who have come home with post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and amputations who need the services of the VA hospitals. Is the President arguing that money for VA hospitals has ``nothing to do with the war on terror''? That is what he said. That is an exact quote.
This bill has add-ons that relate to real emergencies in America. I have outlined a few related directly to the war on terror, directly to our troops, directly to our national security.
There is money, as well, for the base closing commission, which it is my understanding the President wanted included. There is money, as well, for Hurricane Katrina. Here we are, a year and a half after that terrible tragedy, still trying to put New Orleans back on its feet and rebuild Louisiana and Mississippi and areas affected by Katrina and Rita. Yes, there is money in the bill for those emergency purposes.
For the President to dismiss this as billions in nonemergency spending suggests his staff did not do their job, they did not spell out to the President what was in that bill before he vetoed it.
Well, the President knows--and he said as much--we do not have the votes to override his veto. That is a reality. It takes 67 votes in the Senate. We have been able to rally 51 or 52 votes on a good day to question the President's policies in Iraq. Two or three Republican Senators have stood by our side on the Democratic side of the aisle. Few others have been willing to do so. So the thought of reaching 67 votes is probably a bridge too far. I think we know that reality.
But this much I will say: Congress cannot override the President's veto, but the President cannot override the reality of Iraq. The reality of Iraq is this: We are in the fifth year of a war. We have seen 3,351 American lives sacrificed, 25,000 or more injured, 7,000 or 8,000 seriously injured with traumatic brain injury and amputations.
Americans have sacrificed from their hard work and earnings $500 billion for this war and for rebuilding Iraq. That is the reality of Iraq today.
The reality is, this last month of April was the deadliest month this year for American soldiers. The reality is, this President has no plan to exit that country and bring our troops home. That is the reality. We may not be able to override this veto, but the President cannot override those realities.
Now it is time for the American people to understand what happens next.
We will fund these troops. We have made that promise, and we will keep it. They will not be bargaining chips in our policy debate in Washington. But we will continue, through this bill and through other legislation this year, to continue to put the issue of the Iraq war in front of the President, in front of the American people. They expect nothing less.
For those who are frustrated by the President's veto today, I join them in that frustration. But I join them, as well, in believing that as the American people speak out on this issue, the likelihood that Republicans will cross this aisle and join us increases.
The time will come--I am not sure when but I hope soon--that tipping point will be reached where the Republicans finally say to their President: Enough. We cannot ignore the reality of this war and what it has done to America. Then they will join us. Then this will truly become a bipartisan effort. Then we will be able to override vetoes and pass legislation that will make a meaningful change in the policy of this war.
I encourage those across America seeking a new direction in Iraq, do not be discouraged by this veto. There will be another day. There will be another bill. There will be another chance for us to change this policy. We need to keep our forces together--the forces for change in Iraq on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. We cannot allow the President's veto pen to be the last word on this war in Iraq. We have to stand together, and we have to work together.
The President comes up with rosy reports on what is happening in Iraq. But we know the reality. Sectarian deaths are down, he said. Well, I guess they are down slightly, a small percentage, of those innocent civilians killed last month. There were fewer this month. I guess that is progress. But those who are there say the violence is subsiding while the surge is underway, and they are afraid it will return. I am, too.
We need to pass a bill for the troops, and sometime soon. We will work hard to try to find a way with the President. He has invited the leadership of the Senate and the House to meet with him tomorrow in the White House. I have been to those meetings before. There have been little results to point to for the time we have met and the dialog we have exchanged. But I go tomorrow with the hope that things will be different. I hope this President, after his moment in the sun with this veto, will now understand that we face the grim reality of Iraq, and the reality that we have no exit plan.
This failed policy in Iraq must come to an end. We will continue to fight, with this democratic Congress, to make a change in that policy. We will stand by our soldiers, but we will not stand by a failed policy. I am encouraged by the fact that so many of my colleagues are ready to continue this fight, and I encourage the American people: Don't give up. Don't lose heart. This democracy works when you work with us to bring the will of the people to the law of the land.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Source