A joint resolution ensuring that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State are those which were in effect on January 1, 2007.

Mr. President, to many Americans, the word ``Vietnam'' has become a painful remainder of a bloody quagmire of a never-ending war without an exit strategy. Certainly, Vietnam is a reminder of failed leadership and two destroyed Presidencies. Like the Johnson and Nixon administrations during the Vietnam era, when their war policies were attacked, the Bush administration wraps itself in the American flag and often engages in tactics of impugning not only the integrity but the patriotism of its critics. President Bush has even said those who compared Iraq to Vietnam send the wrong message to our troops. Such a comparison, he suggests, harms our troops.

I continue to be alarmed that the war in Iraq shows all the signs of degenerating into an equally calamitous debacle as Vietnam. And that is the point. The war in Vietnam lasted more than 10 years. It took more than 58,000 American lives. That long, painful war could have been avoided. Thousands of American lives could have been saved. The blood of thousands of American sons and daughters could have been saved. It need not have been spilled. That is why references to Vietnam are being made when talking about the war in Iraq. I make the comparison because I am furious, absolutely furious, that this Government, after the bitter and bloody experience of Vietnam, has failed to heed the lessons of Vietnam.

How could we have failed to consider the lessons of Vietnam before stumbling into Iraq? I didn't vote to go into Iraq. I said, hell, no, I won't go. We are doing the wrong thing if we go into Iraq. Did they listen? Did they hear? The American people have a right, the public has a right, to ask this question.

As a Senator, I have an obligation both morally and politically to ask that question. How could we not think about the error this country made with respect to Vietnam before we invaded Iraq? The similarities were obvious. In opposing the Iraq war resolution, which I did, I and others expressed concern that the Iraq resolution was another Gulf of Tonkin resolution and could well lead to another Vietnam. As to the Tonkin Gulf resolution, S.J. Res. 46, I explained in this way:

. . . have several things in common. Congress is again

being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence

that the country poses an immediate threat to the national

security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on

a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped up,

politically charged atmosphere in an election year. Congress

is again being rushed into a judgment.

And I quoted Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed the Tonkin Gulf resolution, as he proclaimed:

The resolution will pass, and Senators who voted for it

will live to regret it.

How right he was.

Tragically, tragically, as the war in Iraq has progressed, the parallels with the Vietnam war continue to mount. We have learned that, once again, the American people were led down the primrose path in rallying support for a costly war. Congress and the American people were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yes. They were told about Saddam Hussein's connections to al-Qaida. They were told about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Africa.

The cost of the war was once estimated to be less then $100 billion. But the bill is now rising ever closer to half a trillion dollars. As a result, the National Journal pointed out, ``as with Vietnam, political support for [the war in] Iraq has proved to be fragile in part because it was secured by justification that has been discredited.''

In each of the two wars, American soldiers were placed in the treacherously difficult situation of having to fight an uncertain, indistinguishable

enemy, never knowing friend, never knowing foe, until they started shooting. As in Vietnam, our soldiers are once again confronted with the deadly situation of trying to ferret out insurgents in a population that is willing--listen--a population that is willing to hide them.

In each war, we went in thinking of ourselves as liberators. We came to be seen by the people we were supposed to be liberating as the invaders. In each war, where it was so necessary for us to win the hearts and minds of the people of the country, our presence there, instead, alienated the people of the country and turned them against us. In each war, both the White House, yes, and the Pentagon, yes, grossly and tragically underestimated the determination and the ferocity of our opponents.

Bring them on, bring them on, President Bush chided the Iraqis and terrorists on July 2, 2003. Do you remember that? I do. He said ``bring 'em on.''

In the time since he made that statement ``bring 'em on,'' we, the American people, have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war.

Yes, ``bring 'em on.'' ``Bring 'em on.'' And so they brought them on. We have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war. As of today, 3,062-- get that--3,062 Americans in total have been killed in Iraq. And for what? And for what, I ask? As of today, 3,062 Americans in total have been killed in that war.

Yes, ``bring 'em on,'' President Bush chided the Iraqis and terrorists on July 2, 2003. So I will say it once more. We have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war since President Bush said: ``bring 'em on.''

Former Senator Max Cleland--do you remember him? I remember him. He used to sit right back there. Max Cleland, bless his heart, recently pointed out that American forces have now ``become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.''

Although Congress should have learned important lessons from the Vietnam war, there are now ominous indications that a path to a new military confrontation is being created right before our eyes. Just this month, the President announced his intention to ``interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria'' into Iraq.

What does this saber-rattling comment really mean? Hear me. Does the President seek to expand the ongoing war beyond Iraq's borders? Does he? Does this comment really mean that? Or are we already on a course to another war in the Middle East? Are we? Will Syria or Iran be the Cambodia of a 21st century Vietnam? Will Syria or Iran be the Cambodia of a 21st century Vietnam?

In the State of the Union Address last night, the President called out Iran no less than seven times. Was the speech the first step in an effort to blame all that has gone wrong in the Middle East on Iran? Was the focus on Iran during the President's address an attempt to link Iran to the war on terrorism, and, by extension, start building a case that our response to the 9/11 attacks must include dealing with Iran?

I fear--and I hope I am wrong--that the machinery may have already been set in motion which may ultimately lead to a military attack inside Iran or perhaps Syria, despite the opposition of the American people, many in Congress, and even some within the President's administration.

Wise counsel from congressional leaders to step back from the precipice of all-out war in the Middle East is too easily disregarded. To forestall a looming disaster, Congress must act to save the checks and balances established by the Constitution.

Today I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is Congress--the Congress, the Congress, not the President--that is vested with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war against another country.

This resolution, which I hold in my hand--here it is--this resolution is a rejection--hear me--a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous, and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption. Let me say that again. This resolution, which I hold in my hand, is a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous, and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the President--any President--may strike another country before that country threatens us, before that country threatens us. That is the doctrine of preemption: We may strike, we may attack, we may invade another country before it threatens us.

Now, this resolution, which I am going to introduce, returns our Government to the inspired intent of the Framers, God bless them, of the Constitution who so wisely placed the power to declare war in the hands of the elected representatives of the American people.

If there exists a reckless determination for a new war in the Middle East, I fear that the attorneys of the executive branch are already seeking ways to tie this war to the use of force resolution for Iraq, or the resolution passed in response to 9/11. But the American people need only be reminded about the untruths of Iraq's supposed ties to the 9/11 attacks to see how far the truth can be stretched in order to achieve the desired outcome.

If the executive branch were to try to prod, stretch, or rewrite the 9/11 or the Iraq use of force resolutions in an outrageous attempt to apply them to an attack on Iran, on Syria, or anywhere else, this resolution of mine is clear--clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky--this resolution is clear: The Constitution says that Congress--we here and those over there on the other side of the Capitol--the Constitution says that Congress, not the President, must make the decision for war or peace. The power to declare war resides in Congress--resides here--and it is we--we, the elected representatives of the people--who are the ``deciders.''

Congress has an obligation to the people of the United States. With so many of our sons and daughters spilling their blood in one costly war, Senators and Representatives have a moral duty to question whether we are headed for an even more tragic conflict in the Middle East. But in order to question this administration--in order to fulfill the duties entrusted to us by the Constitution, to which we have sworn to support and defend--Congress must first insist that the powers given to this body--the Congress, the Senate and the House--are held sacrosanct. We must insist that these powers, including the power to declare war, are not usurped by this President or any other President who will follow.

The resolution, Mr. President, which I am submitting today, is an effort to protect the Constitution--an effort to protect the Constitution--from the zeal of the executive branch, whose very nature is to strive for more and more power during a time of war.

It is time now for Congress to put its foot down and stand up for the Constitution. Our Nation did not ask to be put into another Vietnam. Let us not deceive ourselves that we are somehow immune to another Cambodia. Let us stop a reckless, costly war in Iran or Syria before it begins by restoring the checks and balances that our Founders so carefully--so carefully--designed.

I send, Mr. President, the resolution to the desk.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let the title be read, please.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the clerk.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Crime- Free Rural States Reauthorization Act, a bill designed to help rural communities deal with a growing drug and crime problems made worse by the devastating recession we now face.

This week the Senate is focused on passing a bill to authorize billions of dollars to bail out the automobile industry. Congress has already passed legislation providing for hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue the financial industry. These are difficult pieces of legislation, but we are trying to protect countless jobs and the economy as a whole. These efforts have done little, though, to help the millions of people in rural America, who have been hit as hard as anyone by the devastating effects of this recession, but will see few benefits from financial and corporate bailouts.

We must help rural communities, and they especially need our help as they try to pull together to combat the worsening drug and crime problems that threaten the safety and well-being of too many in our small cities and towns and, most particularly, our young people. The Crime-Free Rural States Reauthorization Act will provide just this kind of help.

I pushed for the original Crime-Free Rural States grant program. It was first authorized in 2002 and funded in 2003. Like too many valuable programs to help local law enforcement and crime prevention, it was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration. The program provides grants for rural states to come up with a plan to help communities confront drug and crime problems and to offer training and assistance for local prevention programs and law enforcement. This program can help cash-strapped communities with assistance they desperately need.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee traveled to St. Albans, VT, to hear from the people of that resilient community about the persistent problem of drug-related crime in rural America, and about the innovative steps they are taking to combat that problem. The introduction of this bill is a small first step to apply the lessons learned in that hearing and in previous hearings in Vermont and elsewhere.

Drug-related crime is not just a big-city issue. As we heard in St. Albans last week and at a hearing in Rutland earlier this year, drugs and related crime are a growing problem in rural communities in Vermont and across the country. Fortunately, resourceful communities like St. Albans and Rutland are coming together to find innovative, community- based solutions to these complex problems.

Of course, law enforcement continues to be an important component in our efforts to combat the scourge of drugs. There continues to be an urgent need for the Federal Government to support

state and local law enforcement. What more and more cities and towns are finding is that the best solutions involve all segments of the community coming together with law enforcement to find meaningful, community-based approaches. Solving these problems as they arise is essential, but preventing them is even better, and less expensive.

Unfortunately, for the last eight years, throughout the country, state and local law enforcement agencies have been stretched thin as they shoulder both traditional crime-fighting duties and new homeland security demands. They have faced continuous cuts in federal funding during the Bush years, and time and time again, our state and local law enforcement officers have been unable to fill vacancies and get the equipment they need.

This trend is unacceptable. I intend to work with the new administration to reverse it. Eric Holder, whom President-Elect Obama has designated to be our next Attorney General, focused on the importance of state and local law enforcement when he was introduced to the nation last Monday. He was a local U.S. Attorney and understands the critical role of state and local law enforcement, our first responders. We need to restore the COPS and Byrne grant programs to help support local law enforcement, and I hope we will do a better job when it comes to rural communities and rural states. That is why I am introducing this bill today to bring back the Crime-Free Rural States grant program.

As a former prosecutor, I have always advocated vigorous enforcement and punishment of those who commit serious crimes. But I also know that punishment alone will not solve the problems of drugs and violence in our communities. Police chiefs from Vermont and across the country have told me that we cannot arrest our way out of this problem.

Combating drug use and crime requires attention to enforcement, prevention and treatment. The best way to prevent crime is often to provide young people with opportunities and constructive things to do, so they stay away from drugs and crime altogether. And if young people do get involved with drugs, treatment in many cases can work to help them to turn their lives around. Good prevention and treatment programs have been shown again and again to reduce crime, but regrettably, the Bush administration has consistently sought to reduce funding for these important programs. It is time to move in a new direction.

I will work in the next Congress to advance legislation that will give state and local law enforcement the support it needs, that will help our cities and towns to implement the kinds of innovative and proven community-based solutions needed to reduce crime. The legislation I introduce today is a modest beginning, addressing the urgent and unmet need to support our rural communities as they struggle to combat drugs and crime.

By funding planning, training, and technical assistance, Crime-Free Rural States grants provide an anchor for our rural communities as they work to address the devastating problems of crime and drugs. It is a first step for us to help our small cities and towns weather the worsening conditions of these difficult times and begin to move in a better direction.

I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders, to introduce a bill that will help States struggling with meeting non-Federal match requirements for federal transportation funding under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, SAFETEA. Representative Peter Welch from Vermont introduced identical legislation in the House today as well.

Our States are struggling with enormous budget deficits due to the current economic crisis. As a result, nearly every one of our States has been forced to make drastic cuts to their transportation budgets. On top of that, state and local governments around the country report they do not have the necessary funding in their budgets to match any new Federal transportation money possibly forthcoming in an economic stimulus package. The inability of our states to improve roads and bridges, support public transit agencies facing record demand, and upgrade rail lines puts a strain on our already sagging economy.

Waiving the non-Federal match requirements for all highway, transit, and rail projects contained in SAFETEA would allow cash-strapped states to implement high priority transportation projects immediately--at no additional cost to the Federal Government. Since State and local transportation officials have ready-to-go projects that simply cannot move forward without untying the strings of the required match, our legislation would waive the non-Federal matching requirements of SAFETEA through September 30, 2009.

I hope my colleagues will take a good look at our bill and support this important legislation that will stimulate needed transportation infrastructure investments all across the country.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Retooling the Health Care Workforce for an Aging America Act, a bill that will address the impending and severe shortage of health care workers who are adequately trained and prepared to care for older Americans. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that while our country is aging rapidly, the number of health care workers devoted to caring for older Americans is experiencing a shortage--one that will only grow more desperate as the need for these caregivers skyrockets.

We face many challenges. We know that few nursing programs require coursework in geriatrics and that in medical schools, comprehensive geriatric training is a rarity. Currently, only 1 percent of all physicians are certified geriatricians, even as the population of older people is on track to double by 2030, and less than 1 percent of all nurses are certified gerontological nurses. Absent any change, by 2020, the supply of nurses in the United States will fall 29 percent below projected requirements, resulting in a severe shortage of nursing expertise relative to the demand for care of frail older adults.

Ensuring that health care workers are properly trained in the provision of care to our seniors is vital. For the direct care workforce, which includes home health aides and personal care attendants, we know that Federal and State training requirements vary enormously, despite the fact that studies show that more training is correlated with better staff recruitment and retention. We also know that family caregivers want enhanced education and training to develop the necessary skills to provide the best possible care for an ailing family member. There are more than 44 million people providing care for a family member or friend nationwide. These caregivers frequently do the same work as a professional caregiver, but they do so voluntarily and with little or no training. To their loved one, they are the doctor, the nurse, the assistant, the therapist, and oftentimes the sole source of emotional and financial support.

Fortunately, knowing what we need to change is half the battle. The bill I introduce today will expand, train, and support the workforce that is dedicated to providing care for the older members of our population, incorporating the major recommendations for improving the skills and preparedness of the health care workforce put forth in the Institute of Medicine report, ``Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Healthcare Workforce.''

By the year 2020, it is estimated that the number of older adults in need of care will increase by one-third. The United States will not be able to meet the approaching demand for health care and long-term care without a workforce that is prepared for the job. Bolstering the health care workforce will be an integral part of national health care reform, and I look forward to working with Finance and HELP Committee leaders on incorporating this legislation into their policy proposals.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. If I could inquire of the gentleman: Would this bill, in fact, proactively cover the Secretary of State if it is Senator Hillary Clinton?

A further inquiry: Would this cover anyone in the House or in the Senate who had voted on a pay package in the House or in the Senate so that they could then become the Secretary of State?

So who would it be limited to?

So it would be limited to the Secretary of State. Regardless of where they came from, they would be frozen at this year's pay as a result of this bill?

A last inquiry: If I understand correctly then, in every way possible, this piece of legislation passed in this Congress would, by definition, by freezing the pay, actually be, though relatively small, a savings to the taxpayers?

With that, I withdraw my reservation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 46 introduced earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read three times and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.