A bill to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

Mr. President, families across America are facing serious challenges in today's global economy. The value of their wages is declining, the cost of living is going up, and many of their jobs are being shipped overseas.

We must respond to this challenge to ensure that our citizens can still achieve the American dream. We have the best workers in the world, and we must prepare them to compete and succeed in the global economy.

America has long been at the forefront in innovation, invention, and education. But other countries are catching up and surpassing us.

America's 15 year olds scored below average in math and science literacy compared to the youth of other developed nations on the most recent international assessment by the Programme for International Student Assessment.

We are losing ground in overall high school and college graduation rates. The U.S. has dropped below the average graduation rate for OECD countries. Out of 24 nations, the U.S. ranks 14th, just ahead of Portugal.

Since 1975, the U.S. has dropped from 3rd to 15th place in the production of scientists and engineers.

Federal investment in research and development is essential to keep us competitive, but federal dollars have been shrinking as a share of the economy. Funding for government research programs has fallen in real terms and is less than in 2004.

At the same time, fast-growing economies such as China, Ireland, and South Korea are realizing the potential for economic growth that comes with investing in innovation. China's investment in research and development rose from $12.4 billion in 1991 to $84.6 billion in 2003, an average increase of 17 percent a year. Over the same period, the increase in U.S. investment averaged only 4 to 5 percent annually.

Study after study tells us that we need major new investments in education and in research and development to stay ahead. We cannot just tinker at the margins and expect to retain our leadership in the global economy. We have a responsibility to make the investments that are necessary to our progress--a responsibility to our people, our economy, our nation, and our national security.

Last year, the Council on Competitiveness urged a focus on lifelong skill development--through elementary, secondary and higher education, and workforce training and support, as essential to keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation.

The recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' emphasized these recommendations. Two of the report's four major recommendations involved education as the solution to meeting the global challenge. The report set out a broad roadmap for keeping America competitive, but it prioritized investment in education over all other recommendations.

The National Association of Manufacturers has also issued a report urging renewed focus on education and training to keep American businesses competitive.

Last week, the National Governors Association released its ``Innovation America'' plan, which outlines opportunities for Federal investment to help spur innovation in the states. Here again, improving education and access to high quality job training take center stage.

It is clear that we must act, and today we are taking a step toward putting America back on the right track.

I am pleased to join a number of my colleagues today in reintroducing the ``America COMPETES Act,'' or the ``America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act.'' The bill is identical to legislation we introduced last year, but the need for action is even more important today to keep America competitive in the years to come.

The legislation responds to many of the recommendations in the ``Gathering Storm'' and other recent reports; it takes important steps to encourage innovation in America as a way to create jobs and move our economy forward. Often, as we know, it is federally funded research that primes the pump for technological, medical and scientific breakthroughs. The bill will double basic research funding by the National Science Foundation by 2011. It also puts us on a strong course to doubling basic research funding by the Department of Energy.

In addition, the legislation creates a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, based on successful models being used in established and emerging economies in Europe and Asia. The Council will bring together the heads of federal agencies with leaders in business and academia to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation. Japan for some time has had a similar council, and Ireland--the Celtic Tiger--has already had extraordinary success in expanding its R&D strength since it established its council two years ago.

The bill also strengthens programs at college and universities to encourage renewed interest in nuclear science. Massachusetts has long been a leader in nuclear research. There are fewer than three dozen licensed research reactors in the United States, and three of them are located at Massachusetts universities--University of Massachusetts Lowell, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and MIT. These colleges will have a vital role as nuclear science expands, and this bill will help expand their programs and establish new ones to meet the growing demand.

We must also make the research and development tax credit permanent. The incentive provided by the credit has led to quality jobs, better and safer products, greater productivity and a stronger and more robust national economy. A growing number of countries recognize the importance of research and development spending to future economic growth, and they now offer more generous R&D tax incentives than the United States. The top 6 pharmaceutical companies, and American high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel and GE have all opened advanced R&D facilities in India. We must give American companies the certainty that our tax incentives will continue year after year and will not expire, so that they can choose to maintain these high-skilled jobs here at home, to keep America at the cutting edge as a leader in innovation in the global economy.

R&D investments also depend on a talented pool of well-trained individuals who can make discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Jobs in science and engineering are expected to increase 70 percent faster than those in other fields over the next 6 years.

To ensure that Americans are well-trained for these jobs, we must improve education at all levels--from the very early years in a child's life all the way through doctoral study and beyond--especially in math, science, engineering and technology.

International comparisons of student achievement show that the United States is slipping behind other countries, but detailed analysis shows that the picture is more complex. The real problem lies in the serious and pervasive achievement gap in this country between higher income students and lower income students and between white students and students of color.

On the most recent test comparing student achievement in industrial nations, white students in the United States performed better than the average for all countries in both math literacy and problem-solving, while their Hispanic and African American peers did worse. Low-income students in the U.S. performed worse than their high-income peers, and also performed worse than other low-income students in over half of the developed countries surveyed.

If we can close this achievement gap, and guarantee all children in this country a world-class education, we can put America back at the top of the list. To do so, we need to renew and improve upon the important reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act this year. As we

do so, we must make a strong commitment to adequately fund those reforms.

We must also invest in teachers. Research shows that having a high quality teacher for five years in a row can overcome the average 7th grade mathematics achievement gap between lower income and higher income children.

But almost half of math classes taught in high poverty and high minority schools are taught by teachers without a college major or minor in math or a related field. The problem is even more serious in middle schools--70 percent of math classes in these schools are taught by a teacher who doesn't even have a minor in math.

Our bill recognizes and responds to the critical need to recruit and train high quality math, science, technology and engineering teachers to teach in schools with the greatest need, so that we can begin to close the achievement gap and ensure that all American students can compete on a level playing field with their peers in other nations.

The bill provides a 10-fold increase in the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation to recruit math, science, engineering and technology students and professionals to become teachers in high-need school districts.

It provides grants to institutions of higher education to create undergraduate programs that integrate the study of math, science, engineering, or critical need foreign language with teacher education, modeled on the successful U-Teach program at the University of Texas. It also helps institutions create part-time master's degree programs to improve the content knowledge and teaching skills of current teachers. In both of these programs, universities would partner with high-need school districts to ensure that these resources go where they are needed most.

The bill expands the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century Program at the National Science Foundation to provide cutting-edge summer professional development programs for teachers who teach in high-need schools. It also creates a summer institute program in the Department of Energy to strengthen the math and science teaching skills of elementary and secondary school teachers.

Recruitment and training of good teachers are important, but so is retention of good teachers. Each year, over 200,000 teachers leave the profession--6 percent of the teaching workforce. High attrition rates mean that one of every two teachers hired will completely drop out of teaching within 5 years-just when they have gained the experience needed to consistently improve student achievement.

To be successful in closing the achievement gap, we must also do more to see that teachers have an incentive to stay in their classrooms once they are there.

We should provide financial incentives--through fellowships or salary increases--to teachers who commit to teach in the highest need schools, where the unique challenges make the schools the hardest to staff. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to add this critical component to the effort.

In addition to providing a high quality teacher in every classroom, we must also ensure that children in low-income school districts have access to the same college preparatory classes that more affluent school districts are able to provide--and, importantly, that they have the preparation they need to succeed in those classes. To do so, the bill expands access to Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes as well as pre-AP and pre-IB courses, especially in high need schools, and creates a program to improve instruction in math for elementary and middle school students and provide targeted help to students struggling with the subject.

The bill also addresses the critical need to ensure our education system is preparing students for the challenges they will face after graduation from high school.

According to recent research, the nation loses over $3.7 billion a year in the cost of remedial education and lost earning potential because students are not adequately prepared to enter college when they leave high school.

For students directly entering the workforce, 60 percent of employers in a survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers said that a high school diploma did not adequately prepare a typical student with even basic skills to qualify for an entry level job.

Many states have recognized the need to better align elementary and secondary school standards, curricula, and assessments with the demands of college, the 21st century workforce and the Armed Forces. Our bill provides grants to assist states in those efforts. The grants would support state P-16 councils that bring together leaders in the early education, K-12, and higher education communities, in the business sector, and in the military to improve the rigor of elementary and secondary education and prepare students for the postsecondary challenges they will face.

These provisions will help spur the development of more rigorous standards, as well as innovative curricula that engage our children in learning and inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers. It will assist states in the work they are doing to create new disciplines in engineering and technology at the elementary school level to teach students the practical applications of math and science. The National Center for Technological Literacy at the Museum of Science in Boston is at the forefront of these efforts.

In addition to the education programs at the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, the legislation relies on the resources of the Department of Energy to assist in the effort to improve math and science education. The National Labs at the Department of Energy can have a critical role in these efforts, and so can the more than 300 colleges and universities across the country conducting research supported by the Department of Energy. I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to ensure that the resources of the Department of Energy are used to enhance educational opportunities for children not only in the states that host National Labs, but across the country.

It is also becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed to and immersed in critical foreign languages and cultures. In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy.

Currently, the U.S. government uses tens of thousands of employees with foreign language skills in 100 languages and more than 80 Federal agencies. In addition, American businesses increasingly need employees experienced in foreign languages and international cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

For students to become proficient in these critical foreign languages, they must have access to a sustained course of study, beginning in the early grades.

But currently, only one-third of students in grades 7-12 and a mere 5 percent of elementary school students study a foreign language.

Even fewer study critical need foreign languages. Only about 24,000 of approximately 54 million elementary and secondary school children in the United States are studying Chinese. In contrast, more than 200 million children in China study English--a compulsory subject for all Chinese primary school students.

The bill begins to address these needs by providing grants to institutions of higher education and local educational agencies to work in partnerships to create programs of study in critical foreign languages for students from elementary school through postsecondary education.

These programs and investments will help prepare our students to compete in the 21st century, but if we are serious about keeping America competitive, there is still more we can--and must--do.

A college degree is fast becoming the price of admission to participation in the global economy. Today, over 60 percent of jobs require some postsecondary training, and the number is rising rapidly. Such jobs bring higher pay as well. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that in the United States, earnings of people with a post-secondary degree are 72

percent higher on average than those with only a high school diploma.

But with soaring costs and stagnant financial aid, college is increasingly out of reach for students and families. Research shows that 400,000 students a year do not go to a four-year college because they cannot afford it. 170,000 do not go to college at all.

When our troops returned home from World War II, we created the GI Bill and sent them to college to learn the skills they would need in the changing world. The pay off to the nation was immense. The economy reaped an estimated $7 in benefit for every dollar invested in that effort.

In recent decades however, federal grant aid has dwindled and the grants don't go as far as they used to. Thirty years ago, seventy-seven percent of the federal assistance provided to students was in the form of grants, but in recent years the number has dropped to twenty percent.

With college costs skyrocketing, the value of the Pell Grant has not kept pace. To ensure the prosperity of our families and the nation, we must open the doors of college to all by restoring the Pell Grant as the foundation of the student aid system.

Last year, Congress squandered an opportunity to significantly increase aid for low income students. The Senate passed a bill that would have immediately increased the Pell grant from $4,050 to $4,500. But this increase was rejected, and the funds were used instead to pay for tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans.

Last month, under the new Democratic leadership, Congress made a strong down payment to help low-income families afford college by raising the maximum Pell grant for the first time since 2003 from $4,050 to $4,310.

I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that higher education is the key to keeping America competitive, and I look forward to working with them to build on this down payment as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act this year to ensure that the cost of college is not a barrier to full participation in the new economy.

We need to reform the federal student aid system to redirect excessive lender subsidies into additional help and support for students and families, including increased need-based aid, making student loans more manageable, and providing loan forgiveness for individuals in public sector careers.

We must also do more to address the devastating impacts of the global economy on American workers and their families.

Our workers are facing global competition that is often fundamentally unfair, but this bill does nothing to level the playing field or to help ease the burden of their transition to the global economy. To truly improve our national competitiveness, we must address all aspects of this challenge. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of working Americans.

First, we need to level the playing field in the competition for good jobs. Americans have nothing to fear from competition that's fair. But it's not fair when Americans are competing with foreign workers who lack basic protections such as child labor laws, a minimum wage, or the right to organize. It's not fair when U.S. companies cut costs by exploiting and abusing foreign workers.

We need to exercise global leadership in promoting fair wages and safe working conditions for workers around the world, reward companies that treat their foreign workforces fairly, and be a strong voice in sanctioning those countries that will not play by the rules.

Beyond these basic steps to level the playing field, we owe a particular duty to American workers who are losing their jobs because of trade. We all benefit from the lower prices and variety of products that globalization provides, but many of our most vulnerable workers are paying the price. We've lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, and service sector jobs are now moving overseas as well. These are good, middle-class jobs, with decent wages and benefits that form the core of the American middle class.

Our response to globalization must address the disappearance of good jobs. We must create the good jobs of the future. We must eliminate tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. We must give fair warning to workers who are at risk of losing their jobs to overseas competition, so that they can plan for their futures. We must strengthen our commitment to help workers who lose their jobs to adjust to the new economy, with well-funded training and income assistance programs that ease the transition to new employment.

Fulfilling our commitment to American workers also demands that we give them their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. Both houses of Congress have now voted overwhelmingly to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and that vital legislation should reach the President's desk soon. But that's only a first step. We need to do much more to promote good jobs and ensure that workers get their fair share of economic growth. We also must give workers a stronger voice in the new economy by protecting their right to organize and form a union.

If we truly want to be competitive in the global economy, we need to address these challenges facing the American workforce head on. Our employees deserve greater job security in the present, and better job opportunities in the future. I hope that the same bipartisan coalition that has worked together so effectively on this competitiveness bill can also work together to address these important issues for America's working families.

The legislation we are introducing today is not a complete package. What it does represent is the beginning of a strong commitment that we will need to sustain and build on if America is to remain competitive in the years ahead. It's gratifying that this bill has strong bipartisan support, because that support is critical to ensuring that these proposals become a reality.

Words alone will not keep America competitive. This legislation must be more than a promise. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to ensure that Congress provides the new investments essential to fully support these important proposals.

Americans know how to rise to challenges and come out ahead. We've done it before and we can do it again. We rose to the challenge after World War II with the GI Bill. We rose to the Soviet Union's challenge of Sputnik in 1957 by passing the National Defense Education Act, and we went on to inspire the nation in the next decade by sending a man to the moon and by doubling the federal investment in education.

We need the same bold commitment now to help the current generation meet and master the global challenges we now face. The America COMPETES Act can be an effective first step. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon the bill as it moves forward and to expand on these efforts in the months to come to make this essential initiative as effective as possible.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment which we will be voting on at 5 p.m. that would, according to, I believe, the unanimous consent agreement, strike the language in this bill calling for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. These same provisions were rejected by the Senate 2 weeks ago by a 48-to-50 vote. Now here we are debating the same provisions that have the same serious problems. I hope they will be rejected again by the same, if not a larger, margin. Supporters of this provision say they want a date certain for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, but what they have offered us is more accurately described as a date certain for surrender--a date certain for surrender--with grave consequences for the future of Iraq, the stability of the Middle East, and the security of Americans at home and abroad. And they offer it just as the situation in Iraq, though still fraught with difficult challenges, is beginning to improve.

The new developments argue for more effort in Iraq rather than the withdrawal advocated by this bill's sponsors. As my colleagues know, I have been critical of the conduct of this war since 2003, and I very much regret that only now, 4 years into the conflict, are we beginning to implement the kind of strategy that was necessary from the start: a traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes protection of the population, economic development, and political progress, all with troop levels appropriate for the mission.

We are seeing today the emergence of precisely such a strategy. I would emphasize this point: This new plan is not ``stay the course.'' We are not staying the course in Iraq and I would not support the status quo any more than I have over the past 4 years. Nor have we

merely deployed a new commander, however capable, and additional forces. America is engaged today in a fundamentally new strategy, a new approach to the war, an approach that is already showing encouraging signs that it might succeed.

Until now, U.S. forces did not attempt to defeat the insurgency and the terrorists, protect the population, and end the violence so political and economic progress could occur. Most American troops spent their days on large forward-operating bases making forays out into hostile territory in which they were subject to ambush. Today, U.S. troops, along with Iraqi forces, are out of the FOBs and living in small outposts. Today, U.S. forces are operating throughout Baghdad, even in Shiite strongholds such as Sadr City, Sunni areas such as Mansoor, and mixed districts such as Rashid. As of March 15, 24 joint security stations were operational, with many more planned. American forces in these stations are visible every day, living among the population, building confidence that we--and not the terrorists--will prevail. Contrary to some predictions, this has not increased U.S. casualties. And, not surprisingly, our presence has resulted in a dramatic increase in actionable intelligence about terrorists.

You might not know it from reading newspapers or watching the evening news, but in Iraq today there are real signs the new strategy is working. I wish to spend a few moments outlining some of this progress, not to paint an overly rosy scenario but, rather, to correct what has become an almost single-minded focus in the Congress on the prospects of defeat. The debate in Congress has an ``Alice in Wonderland'' quality about it: We are debating efforts to micromanage a conflict based on what the conditions were 3 months ago, not on what the reality is today. Conditions have changed in Iraq. The Baghdad security plan-- the ``surge''--is working far better than even the most optimistic supporter had predicted. The progress is tangible in many key areas despite the fact only 40 percent of the planned forces are in Iraq.

Allow me to review some specifics.

In Baghdad, the military has reported an increase in real-time, actionable intelligence provided to U.S. and Iraqi forces by a newly confident population. Prime Minister Maliki, who prevented U.S. troops from conducting certain Baghdad operations last year, has given the green light to American incursions throughout the city, including Shiite strongholds. All of the Iraqi army battalions called for under the plan have arrived, many at or above 75 percent of their programmed manning levels. Bomb attacks and murders are down since the surge began. Civilians killed in Baghdad numbered 1,222 in December, 954 in January, and fell to 494 in February. There are reports of Sunni and Shia moving back into neighborhoods from which they had fled constant and horrific violence. Markets that have been subject to horrific car bombings have been turned into pedestrian malls that facilitate commerce and thwart terrorists.

Moqtada al-Sadr has fled, possibly to Iran, and has ordered his followers not to oppose the new Baghdad security plan. The Madhi army, purportedly dedicated to the expulsion of Americans from Iraq, does not today openly challenge either U.S. or Iraqi forces. American troops are engaged in reconstruction efforts in Saudi City, with the cooperation of the local mayor. In the western part of Baghdad, our troops are establishing new outposts in areas--these areas here--that have been conduits for al-Qaida in Iraq penetration into the capital city, and have begun to clear these areas of terrorists and insurgents. The net result of all of this is key Shiite leaders are now claiming the Baghdad security plan was their idea, and are taking credit for the increase in security--a development that would have been unthinkable 3 months ago.

There is progress outside Baghdad as well:

Throughout Anbar Province, Sunni sheikhs have banded together to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, and are pouring recruits into the police forces. Sixteen of twenty-six tribes in that western province are now working against al-Qaida. With numerous senior al-Qaida leaders killed or captured, the younger, less experienced leaders are making mistakes, such as targeting respected sheikhs and murdering children, that have alienated Sunnis and their leaders.

In the town of Ramadi, hundreds of Iraqi police last week conducted a major sweep. In the surrounding areas--all of these surrounding areas-- including Haditha and Hit, U.S. and Iraqis are conducting operations against al-Qaida and insurgents while protecting the population.

In Diyala Province U.S. forces expelled al-Qaida forces from one of their major bases in January, seized major weapons caches, disrupted fighter networks, and cleared cities and villages of al-Qaida fighters. A U.S. Stryker battalion has reinforced Diyala and is conducting major operations against AQI forces seeking to reconstitute. At the same time, other U.S. forces in Diyala are acting against rogue Mahdi Army leaders in the province and are holding the Diyala and Tigris Rivers to combat re-infiltration into Baghdad.

On the belt to the south of Baghdad, al-Qaida has come under heavy U.S. pressure in recent weeks, with American forces destroying car bomb factories and uncovering major weapons caches in areas such as Yusufiya, Latifiya, and Salman Pak.

In Mosul, U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed and captured numerous al- Qaida operatives since December.

In Samarra, American and Iraqi troops have captured al-Qaida facilitators and north of the city, Salahuddin Province, American troops have moved off of their forward operating base and into the town of Bayji, an important hub on the road network.

These developments, which have occurred just 1 month into the new strategy and with only a portion of the five additional U.S. brigades having yet deployed, suggest that, at long last, we have a strategy in Iraq that is succeeding. That is not to say that all is going well in Iraq; clearly, it is not. Violence continues, the Mahdi Army recently launched an attack in Basra, and one of Iraq's vice presidents was gravely wounded in a bomb attack. But we all know the negatives; we read about them every day and see them flash across our television screens hourly. The enemy knows how attention-getting car bombs are, and their strategy reflects this understanding.

We must try to stop such events, and push the Iraqi Government to move forward with its reconciliation efforts and meet the benchmarks laid out by the President. What we cannot do, and, for the sake of America's vital national security interests, we must not do, is give up just at the moment we are starting to turn things around in Iraq.

Yet in the face of this new reality, the proponents of the legislation offer one prescription for the future: withdrawal of U.S. forces. Despite the progress, despite the ongoing need for U.S. troops to stabilize Iraq and pave the way for a political solution, despite the moral burdens we have incurred as a result of our decision to topple Saddam Hussein, and, above all, despite the catastrophic consequences for vital U.S. interests that would follow a premature withdrawal from Iraq, the sponsors of this legislation would force precisely that.

To those who believe that the best course is to withdraw, I ask: Can you explain to the American people precisely what you believe to be the consequences of this action? If we follow the timetable included in this bill--to withdraw troops whether or not we are succeeding or failing; regardless of whether the country is secured; irrespective of whether the Iraqis can manage their own affairs alone, or whether the forces of terror and chaos will triumph--if we follow this timetable we risk a catastrophe for American national security interests.

Note that American national security interests are directly at stake. Not just Israeli interests, though Prime Minister Olmert has said that defeat in Iraq could be devastating for his country. Not just for our Arab friends and partners in the region, though they fear the consequences of massive humanitarian displacement, growing Iranian influence, and wider bloodshed. Not just for the Iraqis themselves, for whom genocide is a real prospect should sectarian violence spiral out of control. But for America. Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. People say they want to defeat the terrorists. But if we withdraw

from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.

Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority would turn Iraq into a failed state, in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once before, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks--including attacks against America--with impunity. If we leave Iraq based on an artificial timetable, al-Qaida will be free to plan, train for and conduct operations from Iraq just as they did from Afghanistan. We cannot make this fatal mistake twice.

If Iraq descends into chaos, the power vacuum there will invite further Iranian interference, at a time when Tehran already feels emboldened. Iraq's neighbors, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Turkey, would feel their own security eroding, and may intervene on the side of particular factions. This uncertain swirl of events could spark regional war severely damaging to America's fundamental security interests. And we would then face a terrible choice: watch the region burn, watch the terrorists establish new bases, with profound implications for the safety of Americans and their economic well-being, or send troops back into Iraq once again.

The proponents of withdrawal state that they envision no such catastrophe; they are not advocating a precipitous withdrawal but something more gradual, and they would leave American troops in place to focus on three limited objectives: protecting coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. But if these three missions sound familiar, that's because they formed the centerpiece of the strategy that was failing up until the beginning of this year. They would forbid counterinsurgency operations, protection of the population, and the other elements of our new strategy that are directly responsible for the successes we have seen this year. This legislation is a plan for failure. But neither failure nor success is the objective of its sponsors. They wish to get out of Iraq, whatever the consequences for America. They conceive no failure as worse than remaining in Iraq and no success worthy of additional sacrifice. They are wrong, terribly, terribly wrong.

These provisions draw a false distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence. Let us think about the implications of ordering American soldiers to target ``terrorists,'' but not those who foment sectarian violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence? When the Mahdi Army attacks government police stations, are they acting as terrorists or as a militia? When AQI attacks a Shia village along the Diyala River, is that terrorism or sectarian violence? What about when an American soldier comes across some unknown assailant burying an IED in the road? The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are deeply intertwined. To try and make an artificial distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence is to fundamentally misunderstand al- Qaida's strategy which is to incite sectarian violence. To say that targeting terrorist violence is allowable while stopping sectarian violence is illegal flies in the face of this reality, and would make it impossible to fight this war against terrorism, let alone prevail in it.

Some Senators have taken a different tack, arguing that Iraq is still winnable but that, by withdrawing troops, we will actually maximize the chances of success. They concede that a withdrawal will encourage insurgents and terrorists to unleash greater violence on the Iraqi people, but believe that such violence might induce Iraqi politicians to make the political decisions necessary to end it. Could this possibly be true? Can we, by withdrawing our troops from Iraq, actually increase the stability in Iraq rather than risk catastrophe, and induce a political solution rather than make it less possible? Is success in Iraq as simple as issuing redeployment orders, a move blocked only by stubborn commanders and civilian authorities?

GEN David Petraeus, for one, believes that it is not. Of course the dire situation in Iraq demands a political solution. That is undeniably true. But a political solution among the Iraqis cannot be simply conjured. It is impossible for meaningful political and economic activity to take place in an environment as riddled with violence as Baghdad has been. Security is the precondition for political and economic progress, and without security, we will not see the political progress all of us agree is necessary. In this regard, there are positive indications. Prime Minister Maliki went to Ramadi to reach out to Sunnis, and the Iraqi Government is pushing through a new de- Baathification law. The oil revenue sharing law has been approved by the Council of Ministers and should be approved by parliament soon. Reports indicate that Iraqi officials are in discussions with a number of non-AQI Sunni insurgent groups, while fighting has broken out between AQI and Sunni insurgents.

Reconciliation is not the inevitable outcome of the new strategy. On the contrary, there is no guarantee of success. What the situation demands is not a guarantee, but rather a strategy designed to give us the best possible chance for success. This, I believe, is what the new plan represents.

The provisions our amendment would strike would force redeployments of U.S. forces within 120 days, and nearly all troops would have to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008. This does not incentivize the Government of Iraq to make tough decisions on reconciliation; it sets the stage for the Government's collapse. This arbitrary deadline informs our enemies when they need no longer fear American military power. It signals to the population that their best bet for security really does rest in the hands of militias, rather than the Government. It demonstrates to the Government that they cannot rely on us--after all, we are pulling out regardless of the situation or the consequences. And it tells the terrorists that they--not we--will prevail.

All of us want to bring our troops home, and to do so as soon as possible. None of us, no matter how we voted on the resolution authorizing this war, believes the situation that existed until recently is sustainable. But there is a new situation, a new reality in Iraq. This amendment ignores that reality and ignores the consequences that would flow from its adoption. When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. When we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail. When we voted to send them into battle we asked them to use every ounce of their courage and fortitude on behalf of us.

This body unanimously confirmed General Petraeus. Why would we now deprive him of the opportunity to pursue the strategy he helped design and believes can work? Why would we hand our enemies a victory when we have finally taken the initiative and they are on the defensive? Let us give him and the soldiers he has the honor to command, Americans who are risking everything so that this new plan can succeed, the time necessary to achieve its objectives.

And let us elected officials who have the honor of overseeing the conduct of our soldiers' mission in Iraq exercise a lesser magnitude of courage--our political courage on behalf of them and the country they serve. If any Senator believes that our troops' sacrifice is truly in vain, the dictates of conscience demand that he or she act to prevent it. Those who would cut off all funding for this war, though I disagree deeply with their position, and dread its consequences, have the courage of their convictions, and I respect them for it.

If, on the other hand, you believe, as I do, that an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, carrying out a counterinsurgency mission, provides the best chance for success in Iraq, then you should give your support to this new strategy. It may not be popular nor politically expedient, but we are always at our best when we put aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our Nation and the values upon which they rest.

Those are the only responsible, the only honorable choices before us. There

are no others. I wish there were. But here we are, confronting a political, military and moral dilemma of immense importance, with the country's most vital security interests and the lives of the best Americans among us at stake. May God grant us the wisdom and humility to make this difficult judgment in our country's best interests only, and the courage to accept our responsibility for the consequences that will ensue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment--is the distinguished Senator from North Carolina intending to manage this legislation?

Mr. President, I would be happy to do that.

Amendment No. 709

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the bipartisan amendment I will be offering as soon as we have a manager on the other side to conduct business.

Mr. President, in a few minutes I will offer a bipartisan amendment to address the great needs of rural communities across this country. It is an amendment I will offer on behalf of myself, the distinguished Senate majority leader, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee; my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith; Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator Domenici, and a large additional group of Senators of both political parties who wish to see reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act which is also known as the County Payments Program.

Mr. President and colleagues, without this amendment, there is a very real prospect small counties in the rural West are going to fall into the Pacific Ocean. These small counties are now standing on the abyss because without county payments funding, they simply are not going to be able to pay for critical services such as law enforcement and rural education.

In Oregon, the sheriff of Grants Pass told me without county payments funding, he may have to call out the National Guard to protect public safety. The county commissioners of Curry County report that without county payments funding, they may have no choice but to dissolve their county altogether. Local officials in Coos County, just at the prospect of losing county payments funds, have already released prisoners from their jails. Local communities in many other States face similar hardships.

Some Senators may not yet be fully aware of what the county payments law is about, so I am going to give a brief explanation of how the program has come to be.

County payments are not welfare, but they are a more than 100-year- old Federal obligation that goes back to the creation of the Federal forest system. The deal was if Federal policy prevented local communities from maximizing their revenues from their forests, the Federal Government would provide a partial payment to these local communities so they could pay for essential services such as law enforcement and schools.

As environmental values changed in the 1990s, and these payments grew even smaller, Senator Craig of Idaho and I wrote the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. That law compensated these rural communities for part of what they needed to pay for essential services. The act has worked extraordinarily well and expired at the end of last year.

In this amendment, our large bipartisan coalition--and I read only a number of the Senators from both political parties who are sponsoring this amendment--our large group seeks to put in place a new updated lifeline to small rural counties. County payments would be extended for 5 years and a new formula put in place to provide greater funding to more than 80 percent of the counties in our country. The formula is based on the current funding formula for county payments and the acreage of U.S. Forest Service and eligible Bureau of Land Management lands, along with a mechanism to focus support on those communities where there is greatest economic need.

In addition to the County Payments Program, this amendment also assists States with a similar program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. This is a program which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from

Federal lands in their State. For the first time in modern history, this program will receive full funding, and it will result in additional support for each county with Federal land.

I note at this time, particularly, the exceptional work done by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who, with Senator Bingaman and so many of our colleagues of both political parties, has been involved in these efforts. As a result of those combined efforts, this amendment is paid for with all funding beyond 2007 paid for by closing tax loopholes that have been identified by Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

This bipartisan amendment is supported by a diverse coalition, including the National Association of Counties, many labor organizations, and education advocates across the country. I urge the Senate this afternoon to recognize the exceptional urgency of this situation and to support the bipartisan effort to reauthorize the County Payments Program and to strengthen the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program.

Rural communities across this country have been hit with a wrecking ball. With the change in environmental values, we have seen many of them, as they look to diversify their economies, reach out and find new industries, yet they have still had great difficulty in paying for essential services.

As they try to meet these challenges--and I am committed, as chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, to work on finding new economic opportunities for these rural communities--the country should not turn its back on rural America as it looks to come up with vibrant, new economic prospects for the future.

These laws--the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and the law that puts in place the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program--provide essential funding and will be a lifeline as these communities work to transition into additional areas that make sense for resource-based economies.

Today, these small communities are asking the Senate to help them from falling into the abyss. The blow to rural communities, if they lose county payments, will be a crippling blow that, in my view, some rural counties simply will not be able to recover from.

Mr. President and colleagues, let us remember rural America as we consider this legislation. I hope Senators of both political parties will join the very large block of Democratic and Republican Senators who offer this amendment today.

Mr. President, we are waiting for a manager on the other side. A number of colleagues, particularly the Senator from Illinois, has been very gracious and very patient. I think what I wish to do is yield at this time. When a manager comes, we will resume deliberations.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for his patience.

Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has indicated he would speak very briefly. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois could speak for his 5 minutes, and with the floor manager coming on to the floor, that we could then turn to the county payments legislation after the Senator from Illinois has spoken for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up my bipartisan amendment on county payments and the payment in lieu of taxes.

I would be happy to proceed, but I recognize the manager on our side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up our bipartisan amendment on County Payments and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, a great many Senators of both political parties have signed on as cosponsors of this legislation: the distinguished Senate majority leader; the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus; chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman; Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Stevens, Bennett, Cantwell, Boxer, Murray, Crapo, Tester, and Murkowski. A great many Senators have agreed to be cosponsors.

My understanding is that, perhaps, in a few minutes the Senate is going to be given a choice of two approaches on how to deal with this issue: the approach that I and a large bipartisan group of Senators are offering this afternoon or an approach that will be offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, our colleague, Senator Burr, which, in my view, is very restrictive and, unfortunately, it is not in line with what Senator Craig and I sought to do on a bipartisan basis back in 2000.

Our law that was enacted at that time was called the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina would, for example, make it very difficult for local law enforcement to get some of these essential dollars that have been absolutely critical to public safety for all these years.

My view is that, under our bipartisan proposal, local law enforcement would have at least a fair measure of the resources they need to fight methamphetamine in local communities across the country. Our colleague from North Carolina, in his approach, would not make that possible.

So I hope that, as colleagues consider this debate, they will vote in favor of the amendment I offer this afternoon, on behalf of the large group of Senators of both political parties who have been intimately involved in this program for many years.

Our amendment is fully paid for through the good work of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and I hope our colleagues will vote for our amendment and will reject the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, which is much more restrictive and, unfortunately, forgets the second part of the legislation that is so vital to rural communities and that is law enforcement and roads and other essential services.

I had a chance to speak on this earlier, so I will be brief. Other colleagues would like to speak as well. The reality in rural America and the rural West is that communities are about to fall off a financial cliff.

They are going to lose these essential funds that have been part of a Federal obligation for more than a hundred years. It is not a welfare program. It is not some kind of a handout that goes to rural communities in the West. These are communities where the Federal Government owns most of the land. The local community is not allowed to maximize its revenues on those lands because the Federal Government has essentially said we are not going to treat them as private property, where you generate a sale and revenue and you pay for essential services.

So the Federal Government entered into an agreement more than a hundred years ago to provide compensation to those local communities where the Federal Government owned most of the land. What our bipartisan group wants to do is update and modernize that obligation that was incurred more than a hundred years ago when the Federal forest system was established.

Our amendment would resolve the budget crisis that is confronting rural communities by fully funding the County Payments Program for 2007, and then we set in place a formula that was negotiated for many months through a large group of Senators.

I have the chart indicating the new formula that has been put into place. It makes it very clear that Senators understand this program, because of the

will of this body, ought to be modernized. That is what we have done. But in addition to that effort, we have made sure the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal lands in that State, would receive support as well. And every county in our country with Federal land would benefit from this particular program. The emergency funding is what gets us over the first year of the program; it is a 5-year program. Senator Baucus has been willing because he feels strongly about making sure when the Federal Government steps in and goes to bat for rural communities, that it will be fully paid for. On the Senate Finance Committee, because of Chairman Baucus's leadership, we are going to raise those funds by closing tax loopholes.

I know my friend from North Carolina is going so speak in a moment. I wish to note, again, a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supporting this: Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Crapo, Stevens, Bennett, and Murkowski. They have all said that this amendment is the way to go if you want to stand up for rural communities. But if you want to make a break with 100 years' worth of history and not even give rural communities the opportunity to get support, as they historically have, for local law enforcement, then Senators can vote for the amendment offered by our colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr. I hope my colleagues will not do that.

We are going to have two votes. One will be on the amendment I offered with that large bipartisan group of Senators I listed. I hope Senators will vote in favor of that amendment.

There will be another amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina. For the reasons I have described this afternoon, I hope Senators will vote against that. Keep in mind that under the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, if you have people who are concerned about local law enforcement they are not, under the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, going to be able to get support as it relates to law enforcement--the needed support to fight meth and to be able to protect public safety in their communities. That is why the large coalition I have described this afternoon is in favor of what I am proposing.

The Senator from North Carolina has come to the floor. I have enormous respect for him. He is going to be the ranking member on the subcommittee. We don't happen to see eye to eye on this issue. I point out that the predecessor of the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Craig, is a cosponsor of this amendment. He remembers the history from back in 2000, when we came together. It is my intent to allow the Senator from North Carolina time to offer his amendment as well, and then at that time I would like to respond to what the distinguished Senator from North Carolina said about his amendment.

I have no objection.

Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona is here, but I wish to briefly respond to the comments of Senator Burr.

When we do vote, again I would highlight that I hope Senators, on a bipartisan basis, for the amendment I am offering on behalf of the large group that includes Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, Senator Craig, Senator Murkowski, and a great many Senators on the other side, virtually every Democrat, will reject the Burr amendment. Here is the difference, and it is striking.

The Burr amendment, offered by our distinguished colleague from North Carolina, sets in place a Federal mandate. It is a one-size-fits-all approach that somehow we ought to decide here in Washington, DC what happens in these local communities. What I have decided, with our bipartisan coalition, is we ought to have an approach that gives local communities a lot of flexibility and a lot of freedom to design approaches that are tailor made to their area.

I have mentioned law enforcement, for example, as one critical area a local community might want to support under the approach I offer with our bipartisan group but which cannot be offered under the approach of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and there would be other examples as well.

For example, if a community was concerned about its roads and was troubled about the prospect that their roads were dangerous, so that, for example, in the snowy seasons it would be treacherous for kids to get to school, under our amendment local communities would have the flexibility to support some of that upkeep for local roads. I have been told in communities such as Fossil, in my home State, they don't think they even have a roads program without the county payments legislation. So there are stark differences between the approach offered by the Senator from North Carolina and the bipartisan approach I am offering today with many of our colleagues.

At the end of the day, the difference is the Senator from North Carolina is offering a Federal mandate which ties the hands of local communities and local school districts, and I gather is one of the reasons some educational advocates have already come out against the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.

I hope our colleagues will support the approach we are advocating today which gives local communities real flexibility, ensures that the Federal Government is keeping its obligation--its more than 100-year obligation--to these rural communities, but updates it, as we have sought to do with this payment in lieu of taxes provision in our amendment and with the new formula--a formula, as the distinguished Senator from Washington, the manager of the legislation, mentioned was arrived at only through some very difficult negotiations with many Senators involved.

So when Senators vote in a few minutes, I hope they will support the amendment I am offering today, with the large group of bipartisan sponsors, and reject the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina which, in my view, is a Federal mandate that greatly limits the ability to make the best use of these county payments dollars.

Mr. President, I want to cooperate with my friend and colleague. If the Senator would give us a few moments to go over that for the leadership to work that out. I do not do it as a matter of personal privilege but as speaking for our leader on this side. So if the Senator would withhold for a half an hour or so.

I would have to object to it. I do not personally object to it. I object for the leadership until it has an opportunity to examine the amendment.

Mr. President, is the Senator trying to perfect his own amendment?

Mr. President, if the Senator is requesting to alter his amendment, I have no objection to him doing so.

Mr. President, amendment No. 680 is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, for the benefit of the Members, as they remember, we passed the substance of this legislation, I believe, 97 to 3. That is what is effectively the substance of this legislation. The House of Representatives has passed its own minimum wage. Because of the parliamentary complexities, we were unable to get this issue resolved. The House has included a minimum wage provision in their proposal.

We offer this proposal, which is an expression of the Senate. It has broad bipartisan support--Republican and Democrat. This will mean both pieces of legislation--the supplemental--will have the minimum wage, and then the conferees will be able to make their judgment. But out of it will come an increase in the minimum wage. So it is in that spirit. I am delighted to debate the minimum wage, but I think we had a good debate. We had, I think, close to 7 days' debate on it in the last few weeks, so I do not think that is necessary.

That is the current situation. That is the reason that legislation is pending at this time. I very much appreciate the cooperation of the floor managers in letting us get this at least up before the Senate at this time.

Mr. President, I oppose the Republican effort to strike the critical section of this bill requiring our troops in Iraq to begin to come home in 120 days and that we finish the job in 2008.

This is a defining moment for our country. The American people are watching, and the world is watching. The issue is clear. Will we stand with our soldiers by ending their misguided mission and beginning to bring them home? Or will we stand with the President and keep our soldiers trapped in Iraq's civil war?

History will judge us. We can either continue down the President's perilous path or insist on a new direction. If we don't change course, we know what lies ahead--more American casualties, more deaths, more destruction, greater loss of respect for America in the wider world, and greater danger to our national security. A new strategy that makes Iraqis less reliant on our military is the best way forward.

More of the same misguided policy will result in more of the same tragedy for our military. We need a realistic strategy, and we need it now. Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. Our national security itself is at stake.

In this debate, we hear echoes of the past: We are accused of cutting and running. We are accused of giving comfort to the enemy. We are told we need to be patient and to accept the importance of staying the course. We are told we have to give the latest escalation a chance to succeed.

Listen to this comment from a high-ranking American official:

It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the

course, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse

and independent Asia . . . If we faltered, the forces of

chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and

aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was

clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the

course.

That is not President Bush speaking. It is President Lyndon Johnson 40 years ago, ordering a 100,000 more American soldiers to Vietnam.

Here is another quotation:

The big problem is to get territory and to keep it. You can

get it today and it will be gone next week. That is the

problem. You have to have enough people to clear it . . . and

enough people to preserve what you have done.

That is not President Bush on the need for more forces in Iraq. It is President Johnson in 1966 as he doubled our military presence in Vietnam.

Here is yet another familiar argument.

We are not going to tuck our tail and run . . .

Those are not President Bush's words. Those are the words of President Johnson in 1966.

Here is another familiar argument:

We are being steadfast in Vietnam because we don't want the

next generation of Americans to have to fight another war.

That is not President Bush, but it sure sounds like him. It is Vice President Agnew in December 1969.

Here is another familiar argument being used in the Iraq debate by the stay-the-course Republicans that we've heard before:

We think we can bring peace. We will bring peace. The peace

that we will be able to achieve will be due to the fact that

Americans, when it really counted, did not buckle, did not

run away, but stood fast . . .

That is not President Bush. It is President Nixon in September 1969.

And here is another:

If, when the chips are down, the world's most powerful

nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful,

helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy

will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout

the world.

That's not President Bush. Those are the words of President Nixon in April of 1970.

These words from the past resonate painfully in today's debate on Iraq. In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy. The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each new escalation in Vietnam would be the last. We were told to be steadfast, to stay the course, and not to retreat. There was no military solution to that war. But we kept trying to find one anyway. In the end, 58,000 Americans died in the search for it.

Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.

But we have heard all that in the current debate about Iraq as well. We

have heard for years that the administration has a plan for success, that progress is just around the corner. But the plans for success keep getting tossed aside for new plans. The administration has benchmarks to measure success, but there are no consequences when the benchmarks are not met. The timelines for progress keep getting extended. We have turned so many corners that we have ended up back where we started-- trying to control Baghdad.

It is time to change direction. Mr. President, 3,200 members of our forces have been killed, and more than 24,000 have been wounded. The casualties keep mounting. The violence continues to spiral upward. Our troops are in the impossible position of trying to stabilize a country at war with itself.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate confirms the nightmare scenario unfolding for our troops. Iraq is sliding deeper into the abyss of civil war, and our brave men and women are caught in the middle of it. Prospects for halting the sectarian violence are bleak.

Greater chaos and anarchy are looming ahead. Needless additional U.S. causalities are inevitable.

The facts speak for themselves. According to the United Nations, nearly 35,000 civilians were violently killed in Iraq last year. Most were killed in Baghdad, where ``unidentified bodies killed execution- style are found in large numbers daily.''

More than 2 million refugees have fled the violence in Iraq, and another 1.8 million have been displaced internally.

Our military should not be caught in the middle of this quagmire. Only a political solution can solve Iraq's problems.

General Casey, in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2005, called for a political solution. He said:

If you look back historically at how insurgencies have been

defeated, they have been defeated when the insurgents saw

their options as better protected in the political process

and their prospects for economic advancement can be better

protected by the political process than fighting for them.

And that's the essential element here.

Last August, General Abizaid spoke about the need for a political solution. He said:

Our troops are the best equipped, the best trained, the

best led in the world. And I am enormously proud of them, and

I have the utmost confidence in their ability to handle any

mission. Yet, sectarian violence is worse than ever in

Baghdad in particular. And I wonder about the validity of a

strategy that says that less capable troops that are not as

well equipped, trained and led as the best troops in the

world can handle the security of this country if the upswing

in violence has occurred despite the presence of the best

troops in the world. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence

in our underlying strategy. And it suggests to me that what

we need is a political rather than a military solution.

General Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq, recently emphasized as well that there is ``no military solution'' in Iraq. But no one in the administration has been able to clearly articulate a political solution or how it can take hold in the midst of this chaos.

Instead of giving the Iraqis a necessary incentive to get their political house in order by beginning an orderly redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, the President stubbornly insists on sending more and more American troops into Iraq's civil war. Escalation didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work in Iraq either.

Even worse, the administration has not been honest about the number of troops the President plans to send to Iraq for the surge.

On January 10, he announced that he had committed ``more than 20,000'' additional troops to Iraq. Within a few days, we were told the number was 21,500.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would be far higher as much as 35,000 to 48,000 troops when support troops are included.

On February 6, I asked General Pace and Secretary Gates for the best military estimate as to the actual size of the escalation. Their answer was an additional 10 to 15 percent. General Pace said, ``you're going to need no more than another 2,000, 2,500 troops on the ground.''

Nine days later, the number more than doubled. General Schoomaker told the Armed Services Committee his estimate was somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 troops when he included imbedded trainers. Then, on March 6 Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told a House committee ``about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000.''

On March 7, at the request of General Petraeus, Secretary Gates authorized an additional 2,200 military police troops.

We still don't have an accurate total for the size of this escalation. The administration refuses to speak with clarity and candor.

Since the current surge began, Shiite militias in Baghdad may be lying low, but violence has increased elsewhere in Iraq.

In Diyala province, in just 3 months, American casualties have exceeded the number for the entire year of 2006.

In January this year, 83 American soldiers were killed, compared to 62 in the same month a year ago.

Eighty more American soldiers were killed in February this year. In the same month last year, we lost 55 soldiers.

In March, we have already lost 76 soldiers, compared to 31 in March 2006.

Continuing our open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq will not bring victory. It will not stop the violence, and it will not protect our national security.

The administration has outlined military, economic, and political benchmarks to measure success. But it has not given any timeline to achieve them, and it has not specified any consequences if the benchmarks are not met.

This same administration supported timelines for every Iraqi election and for drafting the constitution. Yet it remains emphatically opposed to any timeline for the redeployment of our military.

The American people have been patient. But America has now been in Iraq longer than it took us to win World War II. Instead of progress, we continue to see unacceptably high levels of violence, death, and destruction.

We are putting too much strain on our Army, especially the Army National Guard. Our forces are overextended. Many soldiers are now on their third rotation. In the long run, we can't protect our Army if we don't end the war.

Our troops have done their part. They have served with great courage. We are proud of their service, and we are ready to welcome them home.

It is time to change course. It is time to insist that Iraqis step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own future. It is time to begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. It is time to put the Iraqis on notice that our military will no longer be a permanent crutch for them to lean on and avoid their responsibility to achieve a political solution. As General Abizaid told the Armed Services Committee last November:

I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future.

The only practical way to accomplish the change that is long overdue is for American combat troops to begin to come home.

Those of us who opposed the war are used to the administration's attacks when we disagree with their wrongheaded policy. We have come to expect that.

They have questioned our patriotism and called us defeatists.

When we challenged the President's misguided policy, they accused us of having political motives and being partisan. But all of their criticisms have a hollow ring, because the administration has been so consistently wrong about the war in Iraq.

They were wrong about the link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.

They were wrong about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong about America being greeted as liberators. They were wrong about the insurgency being in its last throes. And they are wrong to deny that Iraq is in a civil war. The American people are far ahead of the administration. For all of us who oppose this misguided war, our goals have always been clear: to protect the lives of our soldiers and to protect our national security.

We have an obligation to stand up for our troops and stand up to our President when he stubbornly refuses to change course in Iraq.

This legislation will do that. It will change the mission of our military away from combat and require the

President to begin to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq in 4 months. The target date for the completion of the redeployment is March 2008, 1 year from now. A limited number of troops would remain in Iraq after that, to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces, to conduct counter-terrorism operations, and to guarantee the safety of our soldiers.

Legislation is clearly necessary to give the Iraqi Government enough incentive to step up to the plate, work out its political differences, and take responsibility for Iraq's future.

Our proposal is consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's findings. It is also consistent with the wishes of the American people, who want most of our troops home within a year. How much clearer does it have to be before Republicans in Congress and the President finally respond to the voices of the American people? We are meeting our responsibilities by changing the mission of our military. We are not micromanaging the war.

Many of us oppose the war, but all of us support our troops. We don't want to keep sending more and more of them into the middle of a civil war. Under no circumstances do we want them to go to war without proper armor and equipment. Our troops deserve better. Their families and loved ones deserve better.

For the sake of our men and women in uniform in Iraq and the American people, it is time for us to take a stand. We need to adopt a new strategy. We need to make clear to the Iraqi Government that the mission of our troops must change and that we have a clear timeframe for their departure from Iraq.

The Senate will fail our troops unless we vote to change course and begin to bring our soldiers home.

At the end of this debate, the American people will know where each of us stands. On our side of the aisle, we stand with the American people. The voters told us in November to change course and begin to bring our troops home, and that is what we want to do.

We stand with our troops. We and we alone are the ones insisting on a policy worthy of their courage and sacrifice.

We stand for protecting America's national security. The war in Iraq has been a disaster from the start. It has made America more hated in the world. It has made it harder to win the war against terrorism. It has made it harder to work with other nations on every issue.

Peace and progress in Iraq must be earned by Iraqis and their neighbors.

We must no longer send our brave soldiers to an uncertain fate on the streets of Baghdad.

We must begin to bring them home, to the hero's welcome they have surely earned.

Madam President, I want to speak briefly on four different amendments that are pending to the 9/11 bill that is on the Senate floor. First of all, I want to talk about the issue of homeland security grant funding. Today, I will join with my colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and several other colleagues and ask that this amendment be accepted. It stands on the principle that the limited funds that are available from the taxpayers' pockets to pay for homeland security be prioritized based on security concerns and not divvied up based on porkbarrel politics.

I realize the first instinct, perhaps, of a body that represents as diverse a nation as ours, with 50 States, is to take whatever amount of money there might be for any particular project and figure a way to divide it up 50 ways.

We know our security risks are not based on that sort of structure or approach, and it is important that we do try to take the limited resources we have available for homeland security grant funding and allocate them on a risk-based approach.

This approach is pretty simple. It is so simple and so commonsense, it strikes me as unusual that it has not already been embraced by the Congress. It is simply a system that will protect our most vulnerable assets and populations, one that recognizes the need to protect the critical infrastructure and vital components of our national economy. It is vital that we better allocate our limited resources to the most vulnerable places in the country that we need to protect, and that these funds be distributed in an efficient and timely manner.

The principle upon which this risk-based funding is premised has three main criteria: threat, vulnerability, and consequence. That is, what is the greatest threat to our country? What is the greatest vulnerability in terms of if there was a successful attack against our Nation's infrastructure, what infrastructure would be the most vulnerable and have the greatest negative consequence on our country?

It requires States to quickly pass on Federal funds to areas where they are most needed as well and provides greater flexibility using these funds and that they be done consistent with federally established capability standards.

This amendment would allow States to retain authority to administer grant programs, but there are penalties to States that do not pass funds on to local governments within 45 days. If a State fails to pass the funds through, local governments may, under this amendment, petition the Department of Homeland Security to receive those funds directly.

This is an attempt to respond to one of the concerns I hear in my State from local governments and local authorities that are dependent on the State government to actually pass the funds through. In fact, despite the good work this body did on issues such as Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita relief, we find that a lot of the funds that have been appropriated by Congress are simply bogged down in the bureaucratic structure when it moves from the Federal Government to the State government on to local governments.

So this amendment, which I hope our colleagues will support and which will actually result in a net increase in funds to 70 percent of the States, is based on two fundamental premises. One is that we ought to allocate those limited funds based on risk, vulnerability, and consequence, and that we ought to then try to get the money to the local officials and the local persons who need it most and to break it out of this bureaucratic structure that too often delays funds getting to the people who need it most quickly.

I also have offered an amendment separately, amendment No. 312, about which I wish to speak briefly. This is a terrorism recruiting prohibition and penalty that is lacking under our current law. We know it has been more than 5 years since we were attacked on September 11. It is important, as time works to ease the pain on that terrible day, that we in Congress ensure we are providing every possible tool to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. We have made significant progress in updating our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, enabling them to better protect us at home and abroad, but there is still a lot we need to do.

One area we must address and is addressed by this amendment is the issue of terrorist recruiting.

The FBI and other agencies of the Federal Government have made it clear that al-Qaida and other terrorists are intent on striking us again. We know from the 9/11 report that al-Qaida is patient and willing to wait years to take advantage of an opportunity to attack us, and in the meanwhile, they carefully formulate how they will carry out their plan. According to congressional testimony, terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are seeking to recruit people within the United States. Of course, their goal is to find individuals who do not fit the traditional terrorist model who are willing to engage in terrorism. Recruiting these individuals who blend easily into our society provides al-Qaida and other terrorists an operational advantage.

This is not, however, an academic discussion. Let me use one example of why I believe this amendment should be adopted.

Intelligence documents regarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--the so- called mastermind behind 9/11--reveal that he was running terrorist cells in the United States. These documents also show that it was al- Qaida's goal to recruit U.S. citizens and other westerners who could move freely in the United States. They targeted mosques, prisons, and universities throughout the United States where they could identify and recruit people who they thought might be sympathetic to their cause and then persuade these individuals to join their terrorist organization.

Currently--and this is a shocking fact--we have no statutes specifically designed to punish those who recruit people to commit terrorist acts. The amendment I am offering would remedy this serious gap in our law. My amendment simply provides that it is against the law to recruit or, in the words of the amendment, ``to employ, solicit, induce, command, or cause'' any person to commit an act of domestic terrorism, international terrorism, or Federal crime of terrorism, and any person convicted of doing so would face severe punishment. This amendment would also provide that anyone committing this crime would be punished for up to 10 years in Federal prison. If death of an individual results, he or she would be punished, on a finding and conviction of guilt, to death or any term of years or for life. If serious bodily injury to any individual results, the punishment would be no less than 10 years or for no more than 25 years.

I believe this is a commonsense amendment designed to fill a serious gap in our Criminal Code that should not exist any longer, certainly not this long after 9/11. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I have also offered amendment No. 311, which is one that is not unfamiliar to Members of this body. I offered this amendment during our immigration debates last year. It is one supported by the Department of Homeland Security because this amendment, which received bipartisan support last year, will remove current litigation barriers impeding the ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to do his job;

that is, enforce the immigration laws, especially as they are related to apprehension, detention, and expedited removals of illegal aliens.

We know one of the most obvious symbols of the Federal Government's failure to deal with our immigration problem and our broken borders is the now repudiated catch-and-release program where, because of lack of adequate facilities to detain individuals, particularly coming from countries other than Mexico, they were often caught and then simply released on their own recognizance and asked to return for a deportation hearing at a later time. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of these individuals did not appear for their deportation hearing but merely melted into the landscape.

In this particular instance, this amendment is designed to address a particular court-ordered permanent injunction issued in an immigration case 19 years ago. This is the Orantes case. This Orantes injunction has hindered the Department of Homeland Security to promptly remove, immediately after apprehension, Salvadoran illegal aliens.

While Secretary Chertoff has made great strides in increasing the number of illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico detained for removal along the southwest border and recently ended catch-and-release at the border, the limitations contained in this injunction still impede the enforcement efforts of the Department of Homeland Security.

Similarly, other longstanding injunctions have not only impeded the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to enforce our immigration laws but have also consumed vast amounts of resources and, in some cases, are now inconsistent with intervening changes in the law.

This amendment does not eliminate injunctive relief but only requires that injunctions be drawn narrowly and not unnecessarily impede the enforcement of our immigration laws. Congress enacted comparable legislation narrowing the basis for injunctive relief in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and that legislation has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

This amendment would simply require that courts narrowly tailor injunctive relief orders against the Government in immigration cases. Courts must limit relief to the minimum necessary to remedy the violation; adopt the least intrusive means to remedy violations; minimize the adverse impact on national security, border security, immigration administration and enforcement, and public safety; and finally, provide an expiration date for injunctive relief.

This amendment would provide that preliminary injunctive relief would expire in 90 days from issuance of an order unless the court makes findings that permanent relief is required or makes the order final before the 90-day period.

This amendment would also require courts to rule promptly on all Government motions to eliminate injunctions in immigration cases.

If we are serious about creating an immigration law that will actually work, then we have to eliminate 19-year-old impediments, such as the Orantes injunction, to our ability to end once and for all the failed policy of catch-and-release when it comes to illegal immigration. I hope my colleagues will vote favorably for amendment No. 311, which will end this particular impediment, now 19 years old in the Orantes case.

The last amendment I have is amendment No. 310, known as the Zadvydas amendment because this amendment will strengthen the Government's ability to detain criminal aliens, including murderers, rapists, and child molesters, until they can actually be removed. This amendment arises out of a decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court--it is not a constitutional decision; it is merely based upon a statute, one which Congress can fix and which my amendment will fix. But this decision in June of 2001 simply provided that unless there is a reasonable likelihood that a criminal alien who is being held by the Government will actually be repatriated to their government within a given period of time, failing that, they must be simply released and cannot be held any longer by the U.S. Government. Although the Government has authority to detain suspected terrorists, under this decision, it has only limited authority to detain criminal aliens who have been ordered removed.

Under the Zadvydas decision, the Federal Government has had to release hundreds of dangerous illegal aliens into the American population. Among them is Carlos Rojas Fritze, who sodomized, raped, beat, and robbed a stranger in a public restroom and called it ``an act of love.'' Tuan Thai, who repeatedly raped, tortured, and terrorized women and vowed to repeat his crimes and who also threatened to kill his immigration judge and prosecutor, was likewise released because under this decision he could not be held pending repatriation to his country of origin.

Guillermo Perez Aguilar, who repeatedly committed sex crimes against children and was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, is also an example of an individual who had to be released into the American population because he could no longer be held under our immigration laws pending repatriation because of the Zadvydas decision.

The list of criminal offenders such as these is long, and it is simply unacceptable that these individuals can roam freely in American society because of the way our current laws are interpreted.

Zadvydas and Suarez Martinez, which is another case following the Zadvydas case, were simply statutory holdings, not constitutional holdings. As I mentioned a moment ago, Congress has the power--and, I would argue, the duty--to address these perils to our security by amending the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Indeed, in the Zadvydas opinion, the Court invited Congress to revisit the statute.

Another anomaly created by a recent decision out of the Ninth Circuit is a view that the Department of Homeland Security cannot even detain aliens during removal proceedings. Neither the Zadvydas nor the Suarez Martinez decision made any pronouncements on the Department of Homeland Security's authority to detain an alien prior to removal proceedings being completed and a removal order issued.

My amendment, which will essentially cure the defect found by the Supreme Court in the Zadvydas case, will clarify that an illegal criminal alien can be detained while removal proceedings are ongoing. Finally, it will provide that judicial review of ongoing detention, as with post-order detention, remains available in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia via habeas corpus proceedings. In other words, there will be periodic administrative review of the detentions and an opportunity for judicial review via habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which should address any constitutional concerns about indefinite detentions.

It is simply unacceptable that we should stand by and fail to act on this serious threat to public safety in this country, and this sort of inaction, when it comes to immigration, I think seriously undermines American confidence in their Government. What government would stand by and allow these dangerous criminal aliens to simply be released into the American heartland when their country of origin has refused or perhaps only delayed the repatriation of these individuals back to their country of origin?

We can fix this mistake and this great danger to America's national security by adopting this amendment.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.