A bill to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to designate a portion of Interstate Route 14 as a high priority corridor, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, let me begin my comments this morning by commending the Senator from New Hampshire for his hard work and vigorous advocacy on this issue. He has been a very early voice, pointing out the unfairness of this unfunded mandate on the States, unfunded mandates that the National Governors Association estimates may cost $11 billion over the next 5 years. He has also raised very important concerns about the privacy implications of some of the provisions of the REAL ID Act.

He was a strong supporter of the approach that we took in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform Act when we set up a negotiated rulemaking process which would bring all of the stakeholders to the table--State governments, Federal agencies, privacy advocates, technological experts--and clearly that would have been a far better way to proceed. The Senator from New Hampshire is one of the Senate's foremost advocates for privacy. He has brought that issue up, and his concerns about privacy and civil liberties, on other legislation such as the PATRIOT Act that has been before the Senate. I thank him for his leadership on this important issue.

I do have some good news to report to my colleagues about the pending regulations for the REAL ID Act. As many of my colleagues are aware, one of the problems that the States have had is the Department of Homeland Security had yet to issue the regulations giving States the detailed guidance on how to comply with the REAL ID Act. This is a major problem for the States because of the looming deadline of May of next year by which time they are supposed to be in full compliance with the law, despite the fact that the regulations had not been issued. It was that concern, the long delay by the Department, the cost and the complexity of the task, and the privacy and civil liberty implications that led several of us to come together and offer an amendment that would have a 2-year delay in compliance with the REAL ID Act.

I am pleased to inform my colleagues that as the result of some rather spirited negotiations with the Department of Homeland Security that the Department will announce later today regulations that would give any State that asks an automatic, virtually, 2 years--it could be more than 2 years in some cases--but a 2-year delay in the requirement to comply with the REAL ID Act. This is significant progress. The Department has finally recognized that it simply was unfair to impose this burden on the States, to set such an unrealistic compliance date when the Department had failed to issue the regulations. So the Department will be announcing today that any State that seeks an additional 2 years to comply with the regulations will be granted that extension. This is major progress.

In addition, the Department will announce that it will reconvene the members of the negotiated rulemaking committee that was established by the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act and subsequently repealed by the REAL ID Act to come together and to comment on the Department's regulations. Again, this reflects a major principle in the Collins amendment: that we should have a 2-year delay to allow for additional compliance time but that we should also reconvene the negotiated rulemaking committee, the committee that is comprised of State officials--in fact, Maine's own secretary of state was one of the officials on the committee--and privacy experts, technological experts, all the stakeholders would be reconvened to formally review the proposed regulations and provide the Department with the benefit of this committee's insight.

That is what should have happened in the first place but, certainly, given where we are now, this is another very positive step that the Department is taking. It reflects the principles in the amendment that I and others offered yesterday. It is obvious that the pending amendment provided a great deal of impetus for the Department to undertake these revisions in the proposed regulations.

These two major concessions by the Department--the extension for compliance and the reconvening of the negotiated rulemaking committee-- are major steps forward, but they do not solve all of the issues and all of the problems with the REAL ID Act, the biggest of which is the huge cost of compliance. Along with Senator Alexander and others-- Senator Sununu, Senator Carper, Senator Akaka, and others who had been active on this issue--I am pledging today to continue to work very closely with our State leaders and with the Department of Homeland Security to calculate what the actual costs of compliance are going to be--that is going to be easier to do now that the regulations are finally being issued--and to work to try to find some funding to assist States with the cost of compliance.

To date, Congress has only appropriated about $40 million to help the States comply with the REAL ID Act, and the Department, I am told, has only allocated about $6 million of that $40 million. So there is some additional money in the pipeline, but if in fact the cost is as high as the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures estimate, that $40 million is a drop in the bucket. The 5- year cost estimated by the NGA is $11 billion. Clearly, if the costs do prove to be in that neighborhood, if they are that high, we have an obligation to come forward and assist the States in the cost of compliance. It can be a shared responsibility, but surely, since we imposed the mandate, we should be providing some of the funding that is needed.

I am very happy the amendment that I and several of our colleagues have offered has prompted the Department to take a second look at its regulations, to realize that it was simply unreasonable to expect the States to comply by May of next year when the Department has been so tardy in issuing the regulations. And I am pleased that the Department has changed its mind. I thank Secretary Chertoff for working closely with me and for listening to all of us who were raising these concerns--that it was simply unreasonable to expect States to be in full compliance by May of next year when they did not have the detailed guidance from the Department.

I am also very pleased the Department is going to reconvene the negotiated rulemaking committee members. That will give the Department further input and insights and improve the quality of the final regulations.

There is still much work to be done, particularly in the funding area, but this is certainly great progress, a welcome development, and a major step forward by the Department. I again thank Secretary Chertoff for working so closely with me.

Mr. President, I want to let the Senator from New Hampshire know we are reviewing his two amendments. Based on what he told me, I, too, am inclined to agree to them, and I will be working with the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Connecticut to try to get the two amendments cleared.

I certainly appreciate, coming from a border State, the concerns the Senator from New Hampshire has about U.S.-Canadian issues that might affect interoperability of communications equipment. That has been an issue for us in Maine as well.

I look forward to working with him.

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

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

Mr. President, shortly, I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the Collins amendment No. 277, which is cosponsored by Senators Alexander, Cantwell, Carper, Chambliss, Mikulski, Murkowski, and Snowe. It also has received support from Senator Sununu this morning, who was very eloquent in his comments about the implementation of the REAL ID Act.

I ask to withdraw my amendment in light of the tremendous progress we have been able to make with the Department of Homeland Security over the last 24 hours in convincing the Department to modify the regulations which it is releasing today to allow about 2 years of additional time for compliance with the REAL ID mandates and also to reconvene the negotiated rulemaking committee to take a look at those regulations and provide their insights and input to the Department so the Department can take them into account in issuing the final regulations.

Now, I consider this to be tremendous progress. It is a very welcomed development. The Department's actions reflect the two primary objectives I outlined yesterday for my amendment: first, to give the Federal Government and States the time and flexibility needed to come up with an effective system to provide secure driver's licenses without unduly burdening the States and, second, to involve experts from the States, from the technology industry, as well as privacy and civil liberty advocates--to bring them back to the table and give them a chance to work on these regulations and to improve them.

I am very pleased to say over the course of the past week our amendment has received a great deal of support from a number of sources. The National Governors Association praised our amendment for providing States:

a more workable time frame to comply with federal standards,

ensure necessary systems are operational and enhance the

input states and other stakeholders have in the

implementation process.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a letter to all Senators that was sent on February 27, said:

We strongly urge you to support an amendment offered by

Senator Collins that would delay implementation of

requirements under the REAL ID Act. . . .

The letter goes on to outline the organization's concerns about the costs to States, the capacity for States to meet the REAL ID requirements, and privacy issues and concludes:

The Collins amendment provides the opportunity to address

these matters.

Similarly, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the NCSL, with which we have worked very closely, in a statement on February 20, said this legislation would help ``address state concerns over the Real ID Act. . . .''

To this support has been added the voices of Senator Alexander, Senator Chambliss, Senator Sununu, and cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. One of the very first cosponsors is a former Governor who understands very well the implications for States of complying with the REAL ID Act. That individual is Senator Carper of Delaware.

So we have been able to build a broad bipartisan coalition, and that gave us the strength to prompt the Department of Homeland Security to make the changes as a result of recent, extended discussions with the Department. As a result, we can now say the primary concerns we have addressed with our amendment have been addressed in the Department's proposed regulations.

In the regulations being announced this morning, the Secretary of Homeland Security will commit to granting a waiver to any State that asks for it through December 31 of 2009. States will not be required to make a complicated case for the waiver. The Secretary has recognized the delay in the Department's promulgation of the draft regulations is reason enough to give States an additional 2 years before they need to begin producing REAL ID-

compliant driver's licenses. I am pleased the Department has taken this step.

In addition, the Department has agreed, as I have mentioned, to invite the members of the negotiated rulemaking committee--which was created by the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act, and subsequently repealed by the REAL ID Act, just when they were making great progress--to come to the Department and discuss, in person, their specific concerns about the regulations. The provisions announced today are in line with the need for more time and the inclusion of all interested parties that were the two primary goals of our amendment. These provisions, of course, are part of a much larger regulation that will take us time to review, to consult with the States on, and to comment on. I am going to follow closely the whole notice and comment period. I am sure I will be suggesting changes to the regulations, and I will be working closely with the negotiated rulemaking committee to make sure the regulations are modified further down the line.

I am under no illusions that there are not further issues which need to be addressed about the REAL ID Act. We must look closely at the concerns that privacy advocates have raised about potentially having interlocking databases among the States so that information is shared. There are a lot of questions, such as who would have access to that information, how secure it would be, and how correct it would be. There is a lot of work to be done.

Most of all, we need to get an accurate estimate of how much this program is going to cost the States and how we can help them bear those costs. This does remain a huge unfunded Federal mandate on our States. The NGA, as I have said several times, has estimated the cost at $11 billion over the next 5 years. That is an enormous burden for States to bear.

We also have to determine if the technological demands that will be imposed on States by these regulations are, in fact, feasible. But I am very pleased to note that our efforts with the Department have achieved the goals that we set out in offering our amendment. There is further work to be done on the REAL ID Act, but we certainly have made tremendous progress over the past 24 hours.

I thank all of the cosponsors of the bill: Senators Alexander, Carper, Cantwell, Chambliss, Snowe, Mikulski, and Murkowski for their strong, bipartisan support, and I thank all of the outside organizations, including the Governors and the State legislatures, who have worked so closely with us. I hope we will continue our partnership as we make real progress in improving the REAL ID Act.

Amendment No. 277 Withdrawn

Mr. President, at this time, recognizing the tremendous progress we have made, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 277 be withdrawn.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask that the Senator amend his unanimous consent request so we can go back and forth on his amendment. I suggest that after he speaks, I be recognized, then Senator Menendez, then Senator Coleman, and that we go back and forth on the amendment.

Madam President, if we could withhold the request for a quorum, I thank the Senator from New York for his cooperation in this matter. I know the Senator from Connecticut is on his way.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Minnesota for his excellent statement. He has spent a great deal of time on this issue as the former chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He examined our ports very closely. He helped draft the port security bill we passed last year. I hope my colleagues will listen to his advice on this issue.

Mr. President, 100 percent screening, that sounds like a great slogan. After all, who could be against scanning 11 million containers?

Let's look at what that would involve. The fact is we need to concentrate our resources on containers that pose a real threat, on containers and cargo that are at highest risk. It doesn't make sense to try to inspect everything, and it has extraordinarily negative consequences for our system of international trade.

I rise to oppose Senator Schumer's amendment that would require scanning of all cargo containers entering the United States from large foreign ports within 3 years, and containers from all 700 foreign ports in 5 years. This approach patently ignores the technological limitations on integrated scanning systems that are necessary to scan 100-percent of containers. It irrationally assumes that integrated scanning systems will be practical and cost-effective and work well in only 3 years. I hope they will be, and I will talk about the pilot programs we have underway to see or to test the feasibility.

But the costs of being wrong on this assumption are too high for our economy, as so much of our international trade relies on cargo container traffic. Think of how many companies rely on just-in-time inventory. Think of how many businesses all across this country receive cargo. We need a system that makes sense.

The fact is there are substantial technological challenges to scanning 100 percent of cargo containers at foreign ports. I traveled to Seattle, Long Beach, and Los Angeles to look at the ports and see their operations. I think anyone who does that quickly reaches the conclusion Senator Murray and I have reached, which is this cannot work. If you look at how at-risk cargo is scanned, it takes time to unload the container, separate it from the rest of the cargo; it takes a few minutes to scan each container as this giant x-ray-like machine goes around the container. Then the analysis of the images can take several more minutes.

Think about this. We have 11 million containers headed to the United States; that is in a year's time. That is going up each year. When I first started working on port security legislation, it was only 8 million. Now it is 11 million containers. Well, think of the delays that would be caused by scanning each and every container. It would create a massive backlog of cargo at our ports and it would not make us safer.

There are other problems as well. Current radiation scanning technology produces alarm rates of about 1 percent--almost entirely from naturally occurring substances in containers. Actually, when I was in Seattle with Senator Murray, we were told that, for some reason, marble and kitty litter seemed to trigger false alarms. So obtaining enough foreign government and DHS personnel to conduct inspections of all those false alarms would be expensive. It is far better to concentrate on containers that, because of the cargo or because of other indicators through the sophisticated system used to identify at- risk cargo, warrant that kind of inspection. There would also be a requirement for extensive negotiations with foreign governments to agree on the deployment of scanning technologies, the protocol for inspecting containers that set off alarms, and stationing customs and border protection inspectors in their ports. Foreign governments would probably turn around and say: If you are going to scan all of the containers coming into America, we are going to scan all of your containers coming into our country. That would multiply the costs and the impact.

Requiring all containers to be scanned and the images reviewed without adequate technology in place would make our country less safe, not more safe. The approach in this amendment would unwisely waste scarce resources on inspecting completely safe cargo instead of targeting personnel and equipment on the cargo that presents a threat to our country and the greatest risk.

The Homeland Security Committee spent a great deal of time last year on port security legislation, and we drafted a bill, brought it unanimously to the Senate floor, had extensive debates in September, and we debated this very issue at that time. Why we are revisiting it just a few months later is beyond me, but here we are.

This amendment wholly ignores the pilot projects that were established by the SAFE Port Act which we passed last year. These pilot projects are intended to test the technology to see if there is a way to increase scanning. The technology is changing. It is getting better. This may be feasible at some point, but it is not today.

The SAFE Port Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to test scanning in three foreign ports, and the Department is proceeding very rapidly to follow the instructions. It is going to be implemented in ports in Pakistan, Honduras, and the United Kingdom. These pilot projects will involve radiation scanning and x-ray or a nonintrusive imaging scanning that will then be reviewed by American employees, American officials. If these pilots are successful, then we will begin to expand the equipment and the personnel. But the fact is that extensive research and development remains to be done on 100-percent scanning technologies and on infrastructure deployment at seaports.

Given the significant impact this requirement would have on our economy, it simply is not responsible to move to this requirement before we have the technology in place to make it feasible and before we have the results of these pilot projects. This isn't just my opinion. If one talks to port directors around the world and on both coasts of the United States, one will find that they believe we cannot do this in a practical way and that it would cause massive backlogs and delay the delivery of vital commodities. It would cause terrible problems for companies that rely on just-in-time inventory. That is why many shippers and importers oppose this amendment, as well as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

So what do we do now? I think it is important for people to understand that we do have a good and improving system in place to secure our cargo. DHS has adopted a layered approach to cargo security that balances security interests against the need for efficient movement of millions of cargo containers each year.

One layer is the screening of all cargo manifests at least 24 hours before they are loaded onto ships. This screening is done through DHS's automated targeting system which identifies high-risk cargo and containers. This is a very important point. The SAFE Port Act, which is now in effect, requires 100 percent of all high-risk containers to be scanned or searched by Customs and Border Protection--100 percent. We found in our investigations that was not always the case, that high- risk containers that had been identified were, in some cases, loaded onto ships and reaching our shores. But the SAFE Port Act changes that. It ensures that 100 percent of high-risk containers will be scanned.

The scanning and inspection of certain high-risk containers is one of the first layers of this multilayered approach the Department uses to prevent

weapons of mass destruction or other dangerous cargo from entering the United States.

A second layer is the Container Security Initiative. This program stations Customs and Border Patrol officers--American Customs and Border Protection officers--at foreign ports. The concept here is to push back our shores. The more we can do these reviews overseas rather than waiting for dangerous cargo to come to our shores, the better the system. CSI will be operational in 58 foreign ports by the end of this year, covering approximately 85 percent of containerized cargo headed for the United States by sea. DHS is continuing to expand this program by working with foreign governments, but this is an excellent program because it ensures that our trained American personnel are stationed in foreign ports.

There is yet another layer, a third layer, and that is the Customs- Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program. It is called C-TPAT. This is another layer that is designed to bolster security along the entire supply chain under a voluntary regime. The concept here is that a company can sign up to be part of C-TPAT by guaranteeing that its entire supply chain is secure from the factory floor to the showroom floor, and that is the best kind of security we can have. So when goods leave the factory floor, the supply chain, every step of the way--the transporting of the cargo in a truck to the truck going to the port--at every stage, the company has ensured that the supply chain is secure.

These layers--the automated targeting system, the work the Coast Guard does, which I haven't even touched on--also add to the security. The Container Security Initiative and the C-TPAT Program represent a risk-based approach to enhancing our homeland security. At the same time, they allow the maritime cargo industry in the United States, which moves more than 11 million containers each year, to continue to function efficiently.

The SAFE Port Act also requires that at the end of this year, the largest 22 U.S. ports must have radiation scanners, which will ensure that 98 percent of containers are scanned for radiation. That is practical with the current technology. Again, I have seen that in operation in Seattle, where the trucks roll through these radiation portal monitors and an alarm can sound if radiation is found. Sometimes, unfortunately, there are false alarms as well.

We are also working to install those kinds of radiation monitors overseas because, obviously, it is far better if we can do that scanning for radiation overseas in foreign ports on cargo before it reaches our shores. The Department of Energy, under the Megaports Initiative, is currently installing scanning equipment in foreign ports and scanning containers for radiological material. So we are making good progress.

Some who are advocating 100 percent screening are pointing to a project in Hong Kong, the Integrated Container Inspection System. This is a promising concept, but, as my colleague from Minnesota noted, the project in Hong Kong actually covers only 2 lanes of traffic of more than 40 at the port. In addition, what is happening is images are being taken, but no one is reading and analyzing the images. So this is not truly a project that tells us whether a true, 100-percent integrated scanning system is feasible. But we do have those projects underway, and we should wait until they are ready and finished before moving ahead.

Again, I hope my colleagues will once again reject this amendment. I think it is a big mistake. It would interrupt our system of container traffic, and it could have truly disastrous consequences for our economy. All of us want to make sure cargo coming into this country is safe. There were definitely vulnerabilities and holes in our system for cargo security, but the SAFE Port Act, which we passed at the end of last year, took major steps to plugging those gaps, closing those holes.

We should proceed with vigorous implementation of that bill, including the requirement that 100 percent of all high-risk cargo be scanned, and we should also continue our efforts to build the strongest possible layered system to secure the entire supply chain.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this is the second day of our consideration of this important legislation that came out with a bipartisan vote of 16 to 0, with one abstention, from our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. As its title makes clear, this bill is aimed at finishing the job, completing the mission the 9/ 11 Commission gave us to secure the American people while at home from potential terrorist attack post-9/11.

We had some good discussion in the opening day yesterday. We adopted by voice an amendment offered by the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, which improved the security elements of the so-called visa waiver program, and we adopted in rollcall votes two amendments by Senator DeMint and another by Senator Inouye which would codify the existing regulatory framework that creates the Transportation Worker Identification Card, TWIC. This is the system by which, again post-9/ 11, we are doing things we never thought we would have to do. Then again, we never thought we would be attacked by terrorists at home, striking against civilians using elements of our own commercial society, in that case planes, to try to destroy us.

So here we are with these two amendments now that would codify the screening process by which we aim to assure that those working at our docks, and this will be extended more broadly over time to transportation sectors--there is a card now that exists for aviation- related facilities--to make sure that we have done some screening to see that the people who are now working behind the scenes or even in front of these transportation nodes, which have now in this age become potential targets of terrorists, will be people whom we have reason to trust with that now very sensitive responsibility.

We return to the bill this morning, and we are moving ahead. There are several amendments that I know are being discussed. We have an amendment my ranking member, Senator Collins of Maine, filed regarding the so-called REAL ID Act that is pending. There are other amendments that are being discussed.

I would advise my colleagues and their staffs, if they are hearing this at this moment, that the floor is open. We gather that Senator Schumer and Senator Menendez may be coming over with an amendment early this afternoon dealing with port security, but there is nothing before us now. If you have an amendment, this would be a good time to bring it over.

Mr. President, I note the presence of my friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu, on the floor, and I yield the floor to him at this time.

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Collins for her leadership and for having created a context in which the administration now has come forward, finally, with the regulations pursuant to the so- called REAL ID Act, which does create some flexibility for States to comply with the requirement but also doesn't eliminate it because it is an important one. This is in the nature of this glorious governmental system of ours, the wisdom of the Founders more than two centuries ago to create the checks and balances. The legislature acts, Congress acts, the executive branch begins to work on implementation, States--this could actually be a textbook. Incidentally, I said to my friend I cannot say enough that it was my honor, too many years ago, in teaching a course at Yale to have the current occupant of the chair, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, as my student. He learned very well. He taught me a lot, actually, as time went on. This sounds like we are back in the classroom talking about the relationships in government.

It was, I believe, the advocacy of Senator Collins that produced a reasonable result without the need for a specific legislative action. I do want to go back and set this in context because the overall purpose is a critically important one to the quest for homeland security. The 9/11 committee found that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers,

the terrorists who attacked us that day, obtained American identification documents, some--I hate to use the word, but--legally, which is to say they complied with the requirements for that identification, and then some others by fraud. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the Federal Government set standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and identification cards.

Driver's licenses are the most commonly used form of personal identification by people in this country. For a long time, what was identification about? It was simply that--maybe for credit purposes, maybe to get into a facility. Now identification is loaded with tremendous implications for security and abuse that go beyond financial fraud, which is what we were primarily concerned about before.

The 9/11 Commission made this recommendation for national standards for driver's licenses and other forms of ID cards. They saw it as important to protecting the Nation against terrorism post-9/11 because often--it is very important to think about this--ID cards are the last line of defense against terrorists entering controlled areas such as airplanes or secure buildings. Obviously, it is important that we know exactly who those people are, that they are what the card says they are, and that they haven't obtained that card through fraud.

In 2004, as part of the legislative effort successfully completed to adopt the proposals of the 9/11 Commission and put them into law, Senator Collins, Senator McCain, and I drafted provisions to implement this recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I am pleased to say that we did so with input from both sides of the political aisle and all interested constituencies to increase security for issuing driver's licenses. Our language was endorsed by State and local governments, by the administration, and by a range of immigration, privacy, and civil liberties advocacy groups. In fact, our provisions to create national standards for State issuance of driver's licenses were enacted into law as part of the 2004 intelligence reform legislation.

In 2005, beginning in the other body, so to speak, the House of Representatives, the REAL ID Act was included in a supplemental appropriations bill providing emergency funding for our troops. The REAL ID Act repealed the provisions I have spoken of that Senator Collins, Senator McCain, and I and others had put into the 9/11 legislation the previous year. In place of what I still believe was our workable and balanced program, which would have achieved the aims the 9/11 Commission gave us, the REAL ID Act imposed very difficult and, in some cases, unrealistic and, of course, unfunded requirements on States to verify identification documents by plugging into a series of databases that require technological changes that are expensive and, as is happening right now, delaying the actual implementation of a national set of standards which would have guaranteed us that driver's licenses and other ID cards are more secure.

The fact is, REAL ID obviously, if it did not have this escape valve opened up as a result of Senator Collins' work, would slow down the issuance of driver's licenses to everyone and, I fear, might even increase the risk of identity theft. Notwithstanding that, if I had my druthers, as they used to say, I would go back to the provision we had in the original 9/11 legislation, but we are not there. The REAL ID Act is law, and it is beginning to be implemented.

The most important thing we can do is not pull away from the goal which remains critically important to our national security in the war against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and want to do it again; that is, to make sure our driver's licenses and other forms of identity are tamper-proof and real.

We have now struck a balance, with the initiative of Senator Collins and others and the response of the Department of Homeland Security this morning. We still have the goal, and we are going to implement it in a more balanced and reasonable fashion. But it is critically important not to move away from the goal. The goal is fundamental to the security of each and every American. Yes, it is going to be a little harder to get the driver's license but not a lot harder. What it is going to mean to everybody is that we can feel more secure when we get on a plane, when we go into a secure building, when we just move about enjoying the freedom and way of life we are blessed to enjoy as Americans.

I thank Senator Collins for her leadership and the good result. I remind colleagues that the floor is open for business. We welcome amendments.

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

Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire. These sound like two very constructive, sensible amendments. We will take a look at them and be in touch with him. But I am optimistic we will want to support these amendments. They improve the basic architecture of the bill, and particularly in the critical area of establishing programs of Federal support for the first time that will enable States and localities, consistent with a plan--not just willy- nilly but consistent with a plan--to finally make communications interoperable so our first responders can talk to one another in times of crisis.

I thank my friend from New Hampshire for his initiative.

Mr. President, again, I congratulate Senator Collins for having achieved the purpose of her amendment without having to put it formally on the bill, and I look forward to seeing the Department move ahead in a more cooperative way with the States to achieve the purposes that the 9/11 Commission set out, which is to make the ID cards more secure to protect the rest of us Americans from those who would abuse those identity cards. It is a great accomplishment for my friend from Maine.

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

Mr. President, I wish to build on some things my ranking member, Senator Collins, said about this amendment. I think what ought to be acknowledged is that everyone in the Senate, everyone in America would like to get to the point where we have 100 percent scanning of containers coming into this country--scanning for radiation because we are worried about the potential catastrophe of a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb in a container coming into this country.

We know the number of containers coming in is enormous. Each day, more than 30,000 containers offload millions of tons at our maritime borders. We understand this requires two kinds of screening: First is radiation detection equipment to pick up, obviously, radiation emanating from a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb; secondly, so-called nonintrusive imaging equipment, which is needed in case terrorists have shielded the nuclear weapon or dirty bomb inside some kind of material that will stop it from registering on the radiation equipment. So the nonintrusive imaging equipment, x-ray equipment, will note there is something there that is shielded, which will then lead to a physical inspection of the container.

There is no question in my mind that everybody in the Senate wants to get us to a point where we have 100 percent of the containers coming into America being scanned in the way I just described as soon as possible. What I want to say at this point is that the SAFE Port Act, which, as Senator Collins said, came out of our Homeland Security Committee last year--during those halcyon days when she was Chairman and I worked deferentially as the Ranking Minority Member--was a good, strong bill. It came out of committee, was adopted by both Houses, enacted, and became law on October 13 of last year. Here is the point. The SAFE Port Act, existing law, sets the goal of 100 percent scanning by radiation detection equipment and nonintrusive imaging equipment, as soon as possible.

Obviously, if somebody says we should do it in 5 years, you would say: Sure, why not do that in 5 years. But I want to suggest now that I believe the existing law holds open the possibility of achieving that goal of 100 percent cargo scanning, assuming we can get over all the technological obstacles that Senator Collins and others have spoken of, sooner than the 5 year requirement found in this amendment. That is why it seems to me, with all due respect, that this amendment is unnecessary and, in fact, is less demanding than existing law.

Let me go now to section 232 of Public Law 109-347, which is the SAFE Port Act. It says that the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, and foreign partners as appropriate, shall ensure integrated scanning systems are fully deployed--100 percent--to scan, using nonintrusive imaging equipment and radiation detection equipment, all containers--all containers, 100 percent--before those containers arrive in the United States, as soon as possible.

As soon as possible, I hope, will occur before the 5 years required by this amendment. Not only does it set the goal as soon as possible, it creates a process that, with all due respect, is not found in this amendment, and that process as Senator Collins and Senator Coleman have described. A one year pilot project scanning 100 percent of cargo containers by these two methods of detection, at three ports around the world. That pilot has already begun. Six months after the conclusion of the pilot program, the Secretary has to report to Congress on the success of the program. The Secretary also has to do something else, according to the law. The Secretary has to indicate to the relevant committees of Congress how soon the 100 percent scanning goal of the SAFE Port Act can be achieved.

Not only that, but subsection (c) of section 232 of the SAFE Port Act says that not later than 6 months after the submission of the initial report--and every 6 months thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees describing the status of full-scale deployment of 100 percent cargo screening. That is not in the House-passed provision or, as I see it, in this amendment before us now.

In other words, 6 months after the year long pilot project, the Secretary is going to report on the results and tell us when exactly he thinks we can achieve 100 percent screening of all cargo. The Secretary will then be required to file a similar report every 6 months thereafter until we achieve full-scale deployment of these two types of scanning devices to detect nuclear weapons that may be smuggled into this country in a container.

Obviously, if the relevant committees of Congress that receive these reports--the first of which by my calculation would be April of next year, 2008, and then every 6 months thereafter--believe this implementation is not moving rapidly enough, we can come back and set a definite deadline date. Right now, however, I submit to my colleagues, existing law, the SAFE Port Act, actually sets a goal of 100 percent cargo scanning that I think may be more quickly achieved than the 5 years in this amendment, and sets up a process not found in the amendment, which requires reports to Congress every 6 months. This will inevitably, by the nature of the congressional process, trigger further legislation, perhaps specifically stating a deadline date for 100 percent scanning if we, in our wisdom, think that the Secretary and the industry are not moving rapidly enough.

The bottom line is this. Existing law, in a technologically very difficult area, with significant potential impacts on our economy and the world economy, actually holds the potential of achieving more, and I believe will achieve more, than the amendment that is being offered. For those reasons, I will respectfully oppose the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator from New Jersey will withhold, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. for the national security briefing in S. 407; that upon reconvening at 4 p.m., the Senate resume the Schumer amendment No. 298; that prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, there be 45 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by Senators Schumer and Lieberman or their designees; that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; and that upon use of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relationship to the amendment.

I thank my friend from New Jersey.

Amendment No. 298

Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is basically the same thing that has been asked before. The issue before the American people is whether the President of the United States, on his own, should be able to send 48,000 American soldiers to Iraq, costing approximately $30 billion extra.

The Republicans can run, as I said yesterday, but they cannot hide. That is the issue before the American people. We all support the troops, and we have fought very hard, in spite of our misgivings about this war, to make sure they have everything they have needed.

It is interesting that there is a lot of talk about the Gregg amendment. But if you look at the Gregg amendment and at page 2--the last paragraph on page 2 of his amendment--and you look in the Warner amendment on page 3, paragraph 4, it is identical language. Warner has encapsulated within his amendment what Gregg wanted, which is the so- called ``resolve clause.''

This is all a game to divert attention from the fact that we have before us now an issue that the American people want us to address: whether there should be a surge, an escalation, an augmentation of the already disastrous war taking place in Iraq, causing 3,100 American deaths, approximately; 24,000 wounded American soldiers, a third of whom are hurt very badly; 2,000 are missing multiple limbs--brain injuries, blindness, paralysis. That is what 8,000 American soldiers now are going through--men and women.

So I ask my friend to amend his request in the following manner:

I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 7, by Senator Warner, and S. Res. 70, by Senator McCain, and the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc; that there be 6 hours for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on both resolutions, to be debated concurrently; that no amendments or motions be in order to either resolution; that at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on Senator McCain's resolution, followed by a vote on Senator Warner's resolution; that if either resolution fails to garner 60 votes, the vote be vitiated and the resolution be returned to its prior status; that immediately following the votes on the resolutions I have just mentioned, the Senate turn to the consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the infamous continuing resolution, funding the Government after February 15 for the rest of the fiscal year; that there be 4 hours for debate on the joint resolution; that no amendments or motions be in order in relation to it; that at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on final passage of the joint resolution; that if the joint resolution fails to get 60 votes, the vote be vitiated and the joint resolution be returned to the calendar.

I announce that if we are able to do that--dispose of these three items I have mentioned--this week, or whenever we finish them, then we would begin the Presidents Day recess at the conclusion of this week. One of the things we found is that because of the accelerated work schedule, people are having a lot of work to do at home. So that is why we would do this.

Madam President, there would be no amendments to the CR from either side. I mention that because, in getting to the point where we are, there has been total consultation by the majority and minority, each subcommittee, and the majority and ranking members. The chair and ranking members work very closely. One of the people heavily involved in this, for example, is Senator Domenici, my long-term partner on the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. He fought for more, and he got more. That happened with many Republicans who spoke out, and most of them did.

I further say that if there were ever a bipartisan measure, it is the continuing resolution. But we have to finish before February 15.

So I ask my friend, the Republican leader, to accept my alteration to his unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I will continue reserving the right to object to my friend's unanimous consent request. Prior to making a decision on that, I want to read to everybody here from page 3, paragraph 4, of the Warner resolution:

The Congress should not take any action that will endanger

United States military forces in the field, including the

elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as

such an action with respect to funding would undermine their

safety or harm their

effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

Madam President, I object.

Reserving the right to object, we have gone from this morning and trying to copy one of the trick plays from the Super Bowl to now going to the science bill, and I guess it is modern math. We don't accept that, Madam President. What we demand for the American people is an up-or-down vote on the escalation of the war in Iraq. McCain has been filed. Let's vote on it. Let's vote on Warner. That is our proposal. We haven't wavered from that. We will not waiver from that. That is what the American people demand and ultimately they will get. I object.

Madam President, the Presiding Officer is a new Member of this body, but she should have seen when the Republicans were in the majority. We didn't have amendments. They filled every tree. I will also say, it speaks volumes here today--volumes. There is not a single person on the other side of the aisle who has come to the floor and supported the troop surge of President Bush--not a single person. I wonder if President Bush is aware that not a single Republican Senator has come to the floor and said: I support President Bush sending 48,000 more troops to Iraq. That speaks volumes.

I will also say this, Madam President: Senator Boxer, a couple rows back, just a few minutes ago, talked about one short snapshot of one day from the Los Angeles Times: Scores of people being murdered and killed and mutilated; a little girl leaving school with blood-drenched steps over which she was walking. One could see the red in the photograph, and Senator Boxer was one, two, three rows back. We could all see that.

Not a single person has come to the floor to support the surge, but that is what is dictating what we vote on today. It is not the majority leader. We, for the American people, need to have this debate.

Also, I certainly care a lot about the Senator from New Hampshire-- and he knows that is true--but I have to smile. What has he done the first few weeks of this legislative session? He has brought to the Senate floor during the debate on ethics, lobbying reform, and earmark reform the line-item veto, and then he brought it forth again on minimum wage. And now to stop a debate on the escalation of the war in Iraq, he now comes up with this other diversionary tactic. He is a wonderful man, a gentleman, but, Madam President, do you know what he kind of reminds me of this first few weeks of this legislative session? Somebody who comes into a basketball game, not to score points, just to kind of rough people up, just to kind of get the game going in a different direction.

The game we have going today has nothing to do with supporting the troops. We support the troops. Every speech that a Democrat has given in the last 4 years has talked about how much we support the troops. In fact, we were the first to raise the issue. We were the first to raise the issue about a lack of body armor. We raised that first. We support the troops. We have done that not only with our mouths but with the way we voted.

The debate in the Senate should be on the resolution submitted by the Senator from Arizona, which they have obviously dropped--the resolution from the Senator from Arizona and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut. They threw that out in an effort to go for this diversion.

So why don't we see how the minority feels about voting on the President's surge of $30 billion and 48,000 troops? That is what this debate is about.

Sure.

If I can interrupt, and I do that apologetically, I read it before the Senator from New Hampshire arrived in the Chamber because it is in the Warner resolution.

I don't think I have to make that judgment now because the judgment, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, is not some diversionary matter. The issue before this body and the issue before the American people--that is why we are getting hundreds of phone calls in my office and other Senate offices around the country. The issue is does the Senate support the President's surge? That is the question.

I have to say the Senator from Arizona at least was willing to put his name on it and move forward. We haven't heard a lot of speeches in favor of his resolution. Where are they?

Madam President, I have been asked to yield to my friend from Washington, and I am glad to do that.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Washington that we have a record of supporting the troops. We did it in Kosovo, we did it through the entire Balkans, and we did it in Afghanistan. We did it in Afghanistan with very few questions asked, and rightfully so. We have supported every effort made by this President to defeat the war on terror, with rare exception. But the troops in the field? Never, never have we wavered from that.

In fact, I don't know of a speech, although there could be some given, where a Democrat has talked about the war in Iraq and hasn't talked about how much we appreciate the work done by these valiant troops and the sacrifices of their families. That is why we were stunned during the State of the Union Address when the President even mentioned the veterans.

I am happy to have answered the question from the Senator from Washington.

I yield.

Madam President, I say to my friend who came to the House at the same time as myself, and then we came to the Senate together--in fact, there is only one person ahead of me in seniority, and that is the Senator from Arizona because the State of Arizona has more people in it than the State of Nevada--no one has ever doubted the courage of the Senator from Arizona. I have read the books. I know about Senator McCain. He has not only been heroic on the field of battle but also legislatively, and I respect that.

But I say to my friend, yes, there are 60 votes required on some things in this body. Not everything. The vast majority of legislation that passes here is with a simple majority. I would say to my friend, recognizing that it does take 60 votes, that is why I offered to do the deal: McCain, 60 votes; Warner, 60 votes. That is the proposal I made.

That is pending before the body right now, and that has been turned down five or six times. So I would be willing to do it on a simple majority, if you want to do McCain on a simple majority or the Warner resolution on a simple majority. I would try to get that done. Right now, Madam President, we have the proposal I have made.

I do say that the debate is not whether we support the troops. That is a diversion. We support the troops. The issue before this body is whether the American people deserve to see how their Senator is going to vote; whether their Senator approves the surge, the escalation, the augmentation of 48,000 troops, costing approximately $30 billion extra. That is what the American people care about, not whether we support the troops. We all support the troops.

I will be happy to yield.

I have to be honest with my friend from Illinois, who also came with us at the same time from the House to the Senate, that the answer is, yes. The Lieberman amendment has been given up.

I would say to my friend, yes, that is true. We were willing because the Senator from Arizona had the ability, the courage, and the dignity to put this issue before the American people, even though--and he knows this--the vast majority of American people do not support the escalation in Iraq. But he did it. We were willing to take two Republican resolutions--one supporting the surge, one opposing the surge--and let Senators from every State in the Union raise their hand and tell the American people how they feel about it.

I say to my friend that the rumor around here is that Senator Warner put that in there thinking he could get the support of the Senator from New Hampshire, but, obviously, he was wrong.

I say to my friend that the only thing I sense this afternoon--and I have to say it with a smile on my face, and I hope everyone recognizes this--is that every piece of legislation we have brought up, the Senator from New Hampshire has tried to throw a monkey wrench into it. It happened on ethics, it happened on the minimum wage, and now on this Iraq issue.

I guess my dear friend, who has a stellar political record as Governor, Member of the House of Representatives, United States Senator, chairman of the Budget Committee--and I have commented for the record many times about my admiration for him, but I guess he is the designated ``see if we can mess up the legislation'' guy this year. I would hope in the future to get somebody I don't care so much about because it is hard for me to try to oppose my dear friend from New Hampshire. Maybe when they do this every couple of months they will change.

Madam President, I also have had the opportunity to go to Iraq as many times as my friend from Arizona, and I also speak to the troops and the people at the Pentagon. I have to respectfully suggest to my friend that there are many individuals whom I have spoken to who really like what we have suggested--we, the Democrats--that there be a redeployment of troops.

Does that mean they all pull out of Iraq and leave immediately? Of course, it doesn't. But redeploy the troops. Redeploy the troops. Redeploy them to do what? Counterterrorism, force protection, and training the Iraqis. And my contacts in the military say they think our proposal is pretty good. We were on this proposal before the Iraq Study Group, but they adopted it, and I hope they got it from us, and that is that there should be a regional conference, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and, yes, Iran. This is a regional problem. This war will not be handled and dealt with and taken care of militarily. It can only be done diplomatically.

We are a wonderful fighting force, and we will continue to be, but where we have lost our edge is diplomatically. We have not done well at all in that regard, and the people I have talked to in the military support what we are trying to do: redeployment; they support a regional conference; they support, of course, recognizing that this must be handled politically. There has to be some meaningful reconstruction that goes forward--producing less oil now than before the war, less potable water, and less electricity. These are the things which have to be changed, and the people I talk to in the military think we are headed in the right direction.

They also think we are headed in the right direction when we speak out on the state of deterioration of our military. This war has taken a toll on our equipment--not on our troops alone, on our equipment. It is going to cost $75 billion to bring the military up to the situation they were in prior to this war. They are grateful we are fighting for them in that regard.

So, Madam President, I respect--and I don't have the military background of my friend from Arizona, but I have contacts in the military, and I think a lot of those people are more willing to talk to me than someone who is running for President and someone who is more noteworthy than I am. He is better known in the military, and they know he can respond to them probably better than I. So they are willing to tell me a lot of things they wouldn't tell someone as significant as John McCain.

So, Madam President, I think the Democratic plan we have enunciated is pretty good, much of which we have enunciated for a long time and has been picked up by the Iraq Study Group.

Certainly.

I think that is part of being a patriotic Member of this Congress.

Madam President, I asked the majority leader to yield for a question. I have been on the Senate floor and listened to the exchange between the majority leader and the Republican leader and, quite frankly, I was astonished and I want to understand if the majority leader heard the same thing I did.

The Republican leader came back to you and offered to remove from consideration the McCain amendment, which is the pro-escalation amendment, essentially offering a vote on just the Warner and Gregg amendment. Leaving aside what this says about the lack of support of the proposal on their side, are we hearing from the other side that

they do not even want a vote on whether they support the President's escalation?

It seems to me we are hearing a phony debate request on who supports the troops. That is not a debate that we need to have. Everyone in this body supports the troops. I ask the leader if he heard the request from the Republicans the same way I did, that they no longer even want to have a vote on whether they support the President's escalation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used by the two leaders in the exchange on the floor not be counted against the 90 minutes on each side.

I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes.

Madam President, war is the most serious and the most consequential issue we can debate here in the Senate. American lives, American security, and America's future are all on the line when our country decides questions of war and peace. For years, we have been denied a real opportunity to fully debate this war in Iraq, a war that has now claimed more than 3,000 American lives with no end in sight.

Last November, the voters sent us a message. They want a new direction. What do we hear from the President? More of the same. In fact, his plan is to escalate the war by putting up to 48,000 more Americans in the middle of a deadly civil war. They are two completely different approaches. On one side, we have the American people, the Iraq Study Group, generals who have spoken out, and a bipartisan majority of Congress. On the other side, we have the President and his supporters. In a democracy, we resolve these issues through debate. We in the Senate are ready for that debate. We are ready to move in a new direction, and it starts by putting this Senate on record as opposing the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.

I have been looking forward to finally having this debate in the Senate, but apparently some of the Republicans have a very different strategy. They don't want to have a real debate. They don't want to consider the resolutions that have been offered. In fact, I think the discussion we just witnessed right now showed that to us.

Last night, by voting against a motion to proceed to this debate, they said they didn't want to talk about this. Now, I am not here today to question their motives, but I do want to point out the consequences. Every day they block a debate, they send a message that Congress supports escalation. Every day they block a debate, they deny our citizens a voice in a war that has cost us dearly in dollars and in lives. And every day they block a debate, they are blocking the will of the American public.

I am on the Senate floor today because I know this debate is long overdue, and I am not going to let anyone silence me, the troops for whom I speak, or the constituents I represent. Ever since the start of combat operations in March of 2003, I have been very frustrated that we have been denied a chance to hold hearings, a chance to ask critical questions, a chance to demand answers, to hold those in charge accountable, and to give the American people a voice in a war that is costing us terribly. We are going to have that debate whether some in this Senate like it or not.

Four years ago, I came to the Senate to discuss the original resolution to give the President the authority to wage war in Iraq. At that time, I asked a series of questions, including: What is

the mission? What will it require? Who is with us in this fight? What happens after our troops go in? How will it impact the Middle East? How will it affect the broader war on terror? And are we being honest with the American people about the costs of that war?

After exploring those questions back almost 4 years ago, I announced on October 9 of 2002 that I could not support sending our men and women into harm's way on an ill-defined solo mission with so many critical questions unanswered.

Now, here we are today, 4 years later, $379 billion and more than 3,000 American lives taken. Now the President wants to send more Americans into the middle of a civil war against the wishes of the majority of the public and Congress?

As I look at the President's proposed escalation, I am left with the exact same conclusion I met with 4 years ago. I cannot support sending more of our men and women into harm's way on an ill-defined solo mission with so many critical questions unanswered. Today, President Bush wants to send Americans into battle without a clear mission, without equipment, without an endgame and without explaining the cost.

When he tried it 4 years ago, I stood up and spoke out and I voted no. Again today, President Bush wants to send more Americans into battle without a clear mission, without equipment, without an endgame and without explaining the costs. Once again, I say: Not on my watch. We need a new direction, not more Americans in the middle of a civil war. I will vote for a bipartisan resolution to send a clear message that we oppose the surge. It is the first step in demanding a new direction in Iraq.

No debate on Iraq can begin without first recognizing our men and women in uniform who risk their lives and all too often give up their lives to keep all of us safe. Whenever our country calls, they answer, no matter the cost to them or their families. They are our best. They are our brightest, they are our bravest, and I hope to give them a voice in this debate.

While most Americans today are going about as normal, our troops and their families are quietly making tremendous sacrifices. The burdens of this war have not been shared equally, and we owe so much to those who shoulder those heavy burdens.

I had a chance to visit servicemembers from my home State on the ground in Kuwait and in Baghdad. Every one of them makes us proud. I have sat down with servicemembers and their families at Camp Murray, at McChord Air Force Base, at Fairchild Air Force Base. I have talked with returning servicemembers in every corner of my State. I have worked to help give them the health care and the benefits and the transition and support they deserve.

My home State of Washington has made tremendous sacrifices to help us fight and win the war on terror. To date, more than 59,000 servicemembers with the Washington State connection have served in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Currently, there are nearly 10,000 people with the Washington State connection who are serving in OEF and OIF. According to the Department of Defense, as of January 20, for OEF and OIF, 702 servicemembers whose home of record is Washington State have been injured. That is 702 injured from my State. In addition, 66 servicemembers whose home of record is my home State of Washington have paid the ultimate sacrifice. The number is even higher when you include those who have a connection to Washington State.

Each one of those brave Americans is someone whose mother or father, sister or brother, daughter or son, their families are never going to be the same. Their communities will never be the same. I offer my prayers for those who have sacrificed for our country. We owe them a debt that can never fully be repaid.

After nearly 4 years of losses and misrepresentations and miscalculations, the American people have said they want a new direction in Iraq. Generals have spoken out calling for a new direction. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group called for a new direction. Yet President Bush has ignored everyone and is now pushing to send even more of our American troops into the middle of a civil war. He is wrong. And a bipartisan resolution is the first step we can take in helping to forge a new direction.

But now what we have is Republicans who are denying the Senate a chance to vote for that new direction. In fact, they are preventing the Senate from even debating the merits of that direction. They may have stopped us from moving forward last night, but they cannot stop this debate forever. The American people would not allow it.

If the Republicans stop their obstruction and start allowing the Senate to debate this misguided surge proposal, there are plenty of questions we have to ask. What would be the impact of a surge? How would it affect our men and women in uniform? Will it put more of them into the crossfire and cause more deaths and injuries? My home State is home to Fort Lewis and two of the Army Stryker Brigades. How is the surge going to affect them? Will some members see their current deployment extended? Will others see their deployment date moved up? Will all of them have the equipment they need when they are there? Those are the first questions we have to ask.

How will the surge affect our ability to care for our returning veterans? We are having trouble meeting their needs today; how will we do the job in an escalated war?

I have heard several Members on the other side demand ideas from Democrats, and my first response is simple: To discuss ideas, shouldn't we discuss, first, the President's ideas? He is, after all, the Commander in Chief. That is the point of the resolutions, to foster a debate on the President's plan for the future of Iraq. But the Senate Republicans would not allow that. The Republicans' obstruction and the President's decision so far have left us with very few options.

I am looking at every resolution and every proposal. I am looking forward to having hearings and getting the facts and moving forward in a bipartisan way.

Personally, I believe the way forward should include three steps. First of all, we should strategically redeploy our troops. Second, we should work with Iraq's neighbors and other countries in the area to build a regional framework. And third, we need the Iraqis to take ownership of their own country and their own future. We can send troops for decades and never have a peaceful, stable Iraq until the Iraqi people are willing to work together for a purpose that is larger than their own tribe or their own sect or their own self.

We need to refocus our efforts on the war on terror, on fighting al- Qaida, and on addressing the other challenges that threaten our security. I am very concerned by the reports we hear about Afghanistan, that it is sliding backward and becoming more unstable. Those are some of the steps I would take to improve our security. That is the debate we ought to be having.

Before I conclude, let me address two concerns. First, some people have suggested that if you question the President's policies, you are somehow hurting our troops. As the Vice President would say, hogwash. Supporting our troops means giving them a clear mission, making sure they have the equipment and support they need and making sure we have a clear endgame. If any of those critical ingredients are missing, it is our duty to question the policy until we provide our troops with what they need. Sending more Americans into the middle of a civil war without a clear mission, without equipment, without support, without an endgame, is endangering our troops, not supporting them.

I don't shrink from war. I voted for the war in Afghanistan. My father served in World War II and he was injured in combat. I know war is sometimes necessary. But I also know that if we don't answer the critical questions, our troops pay the price. For too long, partisans have claimed to be speaking for our troops but have blocked the discussions that could truly protect them. I say, no more.

Finally, some people say that a nonbinding resolution is not enough. And I agree. That is why this is a first step. We can't take the other steps until this Congress goes on record, in a bipartisan voice, telling the President the surge is wrong. Once we have done that, the ball is in the President's court. But today, Senate Republicans

are preventing us from getting there. If he still will not change course, we will look at the other tools before us.

Senators have discussed a wide series of steps that we could take. I will review all of them. We are also holding hearings to find out what options we can take. This is the first step. If the President doesn't hear us, we will take the next step. And the next step. And the one after that.

I understand that many Americans are frustrated that our troops are in the middle of a civil war. I am frustrated. too. I wish we had been allowed to start this process, these hearings, these debates and votes a long time ago. But we are moving aggressively forward now. Democrats have been in charge now for 5 weeks. And already, finally, we are having more debates, more hearings, more progress, than we have had in the past 3 years. But I can promise you, this is only a beginning.

We can't have these debates if the Republicans are blocking us in an open discussion of the war. The Republicans need to stop denying a real debate in the Senate, so that together we can move our country in a new direction. I believe for us to have an impact, Congress has to speak out in a clear, bipartisan voice. We could vote on hundreds of resolutions that make us feel better, but that would not help us change direction. It is a strong, bipartisan message from Congress to the executive branch and to the country that has the power to make progress.

I am willing to take the time and do this right and to build the support we need so that at the end of the day we can have a real impact. I strongly oppose the surge. I believe escalation is the wrong direction. I will vote to put the Senate on record opposing the surge if the Republicans will end their filibuster. I will continue to fight for new direction in Iraq.

For too long, the voices of our troops and our citizens have been blocked. Today, Senate Republicans are trying to continue that obstruction. I say, no longer. The debate must begin because our country will be better for it.

I yield the floor.

Of course, I yield to my distinguished chairman.

Mr. President, is there a time limit on my remarks?

Mr. President, I come to this discussion of the Iraq issue from a position of having been in the political arena for 35 years. My brand of politics is moderation. My representation is generally recognized as being in the mainstream. That is clearly where my State of Florida and the majority of its politics is, in the mainstream of American politics.

Since so many people like to categorize us in little boxes of where our politics is, I am generally categorized in that box as a moderate Democrat. I am here today to state why I will vote for the Levin-Reed amendment with regard to the troops in Iraq.

How did I come to this conclusion? Remembering an Alfred Lloyd Tennyson poem, ``Ulysses,'' he says, ``I am a part of all that I have met.'' Certainly, my frame of reference was shaped in large part upon graduation from college, being commissioned as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve and being on active duty, first going on active duty as a 1st lieutenant and then, within a year--since that was the Vietnam era with rapid promotions--serving the second of my 2 years of active duty as a captain in the U.S. Army.

Vietnam was a tough experience for our country. As I went on active duty, President Johnson had announced he was not going to run for reelection, in large part, the Nation was split asunder over the issue of support of the war. Then during my 2 years of active duty, it was the beginning of the Nixon administration, and as they tried to grapple with the war, they concluded some 4 years later that we had to start withdrawing.

It was a time that certainly is different from now because there is such a respect for our troops now. That was not necessarily the case back then when I was in the military. Certainly, all the interaction I had as a military officer was the best, but that was not the case for a lot of returning soldiers. Indeed, they came home to an America that did not support them and did not stand up for them. We learned a lot of very painful lessons out of that Vietnam experience.

Most of us in this Senate who have the fresh memories of that time, when we go to the Mall to the Vietnam Memorial, there is emotion that is evoked--often the emotion of choking up, as you see those almost 60,000 names and you see those dramatic statues of both the men and the women who served in Vietnam.

One of the awful lessons of Vietnam is that you cannot conduct a war unless you have the support of the American people. Tragically, that is the situation we are getting to today. Today it is a lot different than Vietnam because there is outright unabashed patriotic support for our troops and the extraordinary job they are doing. But it is very clear, if you listen to the street, if you talk to your people back home, you realize the American people are not satisfied with the conduct of this war, they are not satisfied with the progress of this war, and the American people, in increasingly larger numbers, are not supporting this war.

How did I come to this conclusion to support the Levin-Reed amendment? Well, back in 2003, when we voted on the authorization for this war, I voted for it, as did most of the Senators here. The information we were given at the time was clearly information that we believed--that was that there were weapons of mass destruction, there were certainly chemical and biological weapons, and we were led to believe Saddam Hussein also had a very active nuclear program.

I am not talking about whispers behind the door or surreptitious notes that were passed in the night. I am talking about meeting after meeting--right up there in S. 407, the secure room in the U.S. Capitol--sometimes when 75 Senators were present, being briefed by the highest levels of the Government: The Secretary of Defense, the National Security Adviser, the head and deputy head of the CIA, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Over and over these were the impressions; indeed, the specific information that we received.

Yes, I got a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate, and it was in a meeting called by our chairman, Joe Biden, who had a classified meeting to discuss it with representatives of the intelligence community. Indeed, the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, at a later meeting, confirmed what others had already briefed, that there was a program that Saddam Hussein likely had to take unmanned aerial vehicles, put biological and chemical weapons on them, put them on ships off the east coast of the United States, and launch them over east coast cities of the United States.

Did I conclude there was an imminent threat to the interests of the United States by virtue of the information I was given? You bet I did.

George Tenet even confirmed that after the war started, the report's veracity.

What was worse--and what I was not told--was a major part of the intelligence community, the Air Force intelligence, disputed the unmanned aerial vehicles report. In fact, Air Force intelligence knew more about unmanned aerial vehicles than anybody else, and they said they were likely for reconnaissance purposes, not for offensive purposes.

So knowing today what I know--that none of that was true--would I have voted the same way? Of course I wouldn't. But I voted in 2002 for the war authorization on the basis of what I was told and which I believed.

In 2006, the agitation against the war continued to swell and the question came up about withdrawal. Again, I supported the administration, and I voted against a withdrawal timeline because I felt if we had a chance of success, we should not be micro-managing the military, and we should let them make their decisions.

But then things started to change. At the end of the year came a big change the report of the Iraq Study Commission. Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, two of the most respected Americans, co-chaired this. Listen to names of the members of this commission who were unanimous. Larry Eagleburger, former Secretary of State. He replaced, by the way, Robert Gates, when Gates had to resign because the President was making him the Secretary of Defense. Gates was in on a lot of this Commission testimony.

Listen to the rest of them. Vernon Jordan; Ed Meese, former Attorney General; Sandra Day O'Connor, everybody knows who she is; Leon Panetta, former Chief of Staff to the President; Bill Perry, former Secretary of Defense; Chuck Robb, a former colleague here; Alan Simpson, another former colleague here.

These are the people who made up this Iraq Study Commission, and they came out unanimously. There were five

Democrats and five Republicans. It was co-chaired by Jim Baker, the former Secretary of State, and Lee Hamilton, the former chairman of the House Committee on International Relations. They said there has to be a different way and it had to be a goal of withdrawal next spring.

So when this issue came up again in the spring of 2007, I voted for the report's goal--an amendment sponsored by Senator Levin and Senator Reed--the goal of the start of a withdrawal--a partial, gradual withdrawal--not a complete withdrawal, a gradual withdrawal. The goal was April of 2008. Now the amendment has been changed, to mandate a gradual withdrawal being completed by April of next year, 2008.

That doesn't mean a complete withdrawal. This amendment says is they are going to leave a good portion of the troops in Iraq to do a number of things. What are those things?

First, I wish to say that, except for the requirement of a withdrawal, the Levin-Reed amendment is very similar to the Iraq Study Commission report. Senator Salazar and a host of bipartisan Senators, including this Senator, are cosponsors of Senator Salazar's amendment. The Salazar amendment gives us almost word for word the Iraq Study Commission Report. What is before us today is something similar, but instead of the goal of withdrawal by next April, it is a requirement.

The Levin-Reed amendment would require the President to implement a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors. It would ensure that our troops who remain in Iraq will perform the most vital missions--that of protecting the United States and coalition personnel, training and equipping the Iraqi Army, and continuing to fight the terrorist groups, particularly al-Qaida--and it requires the President to appoint an international mediator with the authority to engage Iraq's various factions in an inclusive political process.

The Iraq Study Commission report says: Get going. Do an aggressive diplomatic effort in the region. All five Republicans and five Democrats on the commission said: You ought to open up to Syria, and you ought to open up to Iran, under the theory that, indeed, we ought to be talking to our enemies.

When I took off for the Middle East, about nine countries within a 2- week period before last Christmas, one of my stops was to return to Syria for a third visit with the President of Syria, Assad. The White House said don't go. The State Department came and visited me and said don't go.

I said the cat is out of the bag. The bipartisan Iraq Study Commission says we have to open up and talk to enemies. That is the commonsense thing to do.

I was attacked by Tony Snow in his White House daily briefing. Guess what happened? Thereafter, Secretary Rice was meeting with the Syrian Foreign Minister, the same one with whom I met, along with President Assad.

It is all a part of the necessity of us engaging diplomatically in the region at the same time we are trying to figure out what to do with our military.

Earlier this year, over many objections, the President then decided he needed to send more troops to Iraq in a surge, and he said it was intended to bring about greater stability. I opposed the surge. I pointed out, from my experience and understanding of Iraq, the surge would put additional American soldiers and marines in the middle of the sectarian violence crossfire of a civil war.

The sectarian violence has only been going on for 1,327 years, ever since the battle of Karbala in 680 A.D. After that battle, you had, in effect, the Shiites separating from the Sunnis, and that has led to antipathy that it is hard for us in America to understand. Yet it continues.

I said at the time there was a surge that I would support, and that was in Anbar Province, which is mainly Sunni and where the real enemy is al-Qaida. I believed that marines are having some success.

I understand I have 1 minute left. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

I believed the marines were making progress. But there you had just Sunnis and you had al-Qaida that was trying to undermine the Sunni leadership, and the marines working with the Sunnis were having some effect. That is the part of the surge I supported. I did not support the surge going into Baghdad in the middle of the crossfire of a civil war.

The President ignored the findings and the warnings of the Iraq Study Group which recommended a comprehensive strategy for changing the course in Iraq.

So what has happened? In the last 6 months, we have spent more than $60 billion and we have lost another 600 American lives and many more have suffered grievous injuries. Despite those losses, the sectarian violence has only increased.

Yesterday, the President reported that the Iraqi Government has failed to meet many of the benchmarks that we laid out earlier this year. Only the Iraqis can make the compromises necessary to end this war. Our continued open-ended presence has provided them with no incentive to do so. We cannot and we should not be in the middle of their civil war.

What we need is a diplomatic solution with an aggressive, diplomatic effort--which was argued by the Iraq Study Group.

We also need a political solution instead of a military solution. The possible solution that I am drawn to is the one put forth by Senator Biden. Under the Iraqi Constitution, which is a federal form of government, it will allow autonomy of various regions or states that can provide for their own governance along with a National Government that will allocate the oil revenues according to the population.

But still, the President has not changed course in Iraq, despite the facts on the ground and the overwhelming desire of the American people.

So, with a heavy heart, it brings me today to say that we must by law insist that he begin the reduction of the forces in Iraq and the transition of our mission there. Along with others, I do not reach this conclusion lightly nor with any pleasure. I am extremely concerned by the great toll that this war has taken on our Armed Forces and our military families across this Nation, with the thousands killed and many more injured.

I am very concerned about the lack of training and the lack of time for recuperation for our troops, especially the National Guard and the Reserves. I am very close to the Florida National Guard.

I am very concerned about the situation in Iraq, that it keeps escalating, the violence, especially among Iraqis, and the lack of their production of an economic lifeline by the production of their oil. It is being lost to theft and to sabotage. They can't get their arms around it.

And I am very concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people, including now more than 2 million refugees.

I am concerned about the possibility of greater regional violence and instability. I am concerned about the failure of the Maliki government, the failure of the government in and of itself, but especially, as we see now, the failure of the government to lead and to enact necessary reforms.

I will conclude by saying, an open-ended commitment, keeping our troops in the middle of a civil war, is not the solution. We must not only demand that the President change course, but we must require that he do so. So I rise today in support of the Levin-Reed amendment.