A resolution calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to use its unique influence and economic leverage to stop genocide and violence in Darfur, Sudan.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, Members of the Senate--at least a certain limited number--are intensely involved in an attempt to draft an immigration bill that will serve the national interest. I say ``serve the national interest'' because there are quite a number of special interests. There are the interests of poor people all over the world who would like to come here, interests of all kinds. But at one of our hearings, we had several professors and experts on immigration and the economy. They said we ought to ask what is in the national interest and do that. That can also cause us to develop a thought process that could lead to legislation of which we can be proud.

One thing that is not in our national interest is to continue the current policy of immigration. It is not working. It has comprehensively failed us. We all know that. We have been at this for some time. We know this system is not working effectively. It has not made us proud. Congress deserves a lot of blame. Often unmentioned is that very considerable blame should fall on Presidents over the last 20 years because I am not aware of a single time any of them have come to Congress with a comprehensive request for action that would actually fix this broken system. So both Congress and the President deserve criticism.

These discussions are ongoing. I admire the Senators who are participating. I am aware these discussions are going on. People ask me: Senator, does that offend you? I say: No, you need some people to gather to try to hammer something out and sometimes to make a blocked system begin to work. There are some excellent Senators participating in that activity. But I have to tell my colleagues, I have some concerns. My predictions last week seem to be coming true today; that is, a process has been ongoing that could lead to us having an entirely new bill plopped on the floor of the Senate, that nobody has had a chance to read on one of the most important issues facing our country.

Some say: Oh, it is not so important. We have to get the bill off the floor. The public is going to be mad, so the sooner we can just bring this thing up and vote it out and get it away from here, the less blame is going on fall on us.

That kind of thinking is afoot here, I am afraid. But it is not good thinking. I believe the American people know this is an important issue. They believe we should get it right. They want us to get it right. They know there are going to have to be some tough choices. I know there are people talking, calling in on the radio and fussing and saying unkind things sometimes that they shouldn't say. We have people calling in with Pollyanna-ish ideas that are not worth two cents. People sort of judge the debate by maybe what they hear in those circumstances.

We need to work up a bill that can be effective, that would actually work. It cannot be done quickly. Fortunately, the efforts have been abandoned on the bill that we passed last year, amazingly. It was an absolutely fatally flawed piece of legislation that should never have become law. I think Members of the Senate, many of them who voted for it, had they believed it would become law, probably wouldn't have voted for it. They also didn't know what was in it. It was over 800 pages. They knew the House wasn't going to pass it. That is not responsible leadership.

This year, we have a new framework. When you have a new framework, you are not able to analyze portions of last year's bill and see how the new framework is going to work. So we are told that they are coming close to reaching agreement. People who I affectionately called ``the masters of the universe,'' those who are out there plotting all this comprehensive immigration reform and putting it together, they are meeting. What will they produce? I don't know. So we are now going to have a cloture vote on Monday. The Democratic leader insisted on that. He moved it off at least until Monday to give this small group a few more days to discuss it, this small group who are on the inside. As a result, we will have a cloture vote on Monday on the old bill, last year's bill.

Presumably Tuesday or sometime, this new bill will be plopped down. What is going to be in it? We don't know. We were told we may get the language tomorrow or we are going to try to have the language for you tomorrow, Senators, so you can at least begin to read it. We think this year's bill is going to be a thousand pages. That is not a little bitty matter, a thousand pages. As a former Federal prosecutor for 15 years, I know that if you don't get every single aspect of the bill right, it can't be made enforceable. If you make errors in the language and the drafting and the appellate process and the enforcement ideas, the whole thing can be a joke and not effective. It takes time to do write a bill this size correctly.

We are going to have this comprehensive immigration reform bill bouncing back up next week. They are going to want to vote on it by Friday of next week. I submit that Senators will not be given enough time to really analyze it, much less the American people. If we are to avoid cynicism, we ought to make sure the American people are engaged in the process. Those are large concerns of mine.

As I said, they say we may have the language tomorrow. But the best we can ascertain is, it is probably not going to be bill language, language we would actually vote on and amend. This is serious. It is some sort of outline or word statement of what the bill provisions are going to be, not having had it written out so we can examine it carefully before we vote on it.

A group of Senators--I was one of them--has written a letter to the Republican leader and to the majority leader, I believe, to say that with an issue as important and complex as immigration reform, it is critical that the process for floor consideration be open to full and informed debate and amendment. Who could dispute that? It goes on to say:

There are reports that the cloture vote on the motion to

proceed will be held on Monday. We would ask you to seek the

following assurances from Senator Reid.

This would be the letter to Senator McConnell asking him to approach the majority leader, Senator Reid, and ask for these assurances: that a new, compromise proposal should be brought to the floor of the Senate as a separate, clean bill, not as an amendment to S. 1348, last year's bill. Therefore, we can proceed in a clean fashion to amend it and act on it in the appropriate fashion. No. 2, it was asked that full and

final bill text must be available online in a searchable format by midnight tonight. They have been talking about having that available in this fashion, but will we get it? I doubt it. All germane Republican amendments must be allowed to be called up and voted on. That is germane amendments, amendments that go right to the bill, not amendments unrelated to the bill. We need a CBO score, that is the Congressional Budget Office score. We had the CBO finally come through with a score on last year's bill that found that not counting the enforcement expenditures, the cost of that bill, as written, would be $127 billion. I thank my excellent staff member for her assistance. Real money, I submit, it would cost, because the people who would be legalized and given permanent status and put on the road to citizenship in last year's bill would have been available for huge amounts of money from the Government in terms of earned-income tax credit and other welfare programs. So we don't have a score on it.

Before we pass a bill, we should look at the CBO score. The CBO has made clear that the real surge in cost to the U.S. Treasury will be in the next 10 years, not in the first 10 years. In fact, the Heritage Foundation's Mr. Robert Rector, who was one of the architect of welfare reform a number of years ago, has done immense calculations on the cost of the bill. He estimates that a substantial percentage of the people who would be legalized under this legislation will have less than a high school education and that on average would cost the U.S. Treasury $30,000 a year or as much as $1 million over a lifetime per household headed by a person without a high school education. He carefully worked those numbers up. Are they accurate? I don't know. But he spent a lot of time working on that. The point Mr. Rector and the Heritage Foundation have made with crystal clarity is that those wise people in the big suites in Manhattan who think we are going to solve our financial difficulties with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security by adding large amounts of low-skilled immigration are in a dream world because it is going to cost us, not help us, financially. He called it a fiscal disaster. We haven't even seen the language of the new comprehensive immigration reform bill, so we don't know what the CBO score and the cost to the U.S. taxpayers would be.

Those are some fairly minimal issues that I believe should be dealt with before we rush into legislation.

Let me mention a few quick questions that I have about the new bill. The bill purports to have an enforcement guarantee. That is important. The enforcement provisions contained in Title I and Title II of the new bill will be meaningless unless they are funded, meaning that we actually put the money up for enforcement, and unless the enforcement measures are required to be implemented before other parts of the bill kick in. That was the ``trigger'' debate we had last year.

Senator Isakson from Georgia offered a commonsensical approach that we should not give benefits to individuals until we are sure that the immigration system is not continuing to be broken and not working. It would simply require the borders to be secured before the new immigration programs are implemented. But it was rejected on the floor after debate last year 40 to 55 because the leaders who so-called put together that bill last year agreed they would vote against any amendments that had any significant impact on the legislation. So they all got together and voted against a commonsensical trigger. We need such a trigger in this year's legislation.

Without an enforcement trigger, we are unable to assure the American people that immigration reform in 2007 will be any different from 1986, when the promises of future enforcement, made in exchange for the amnesty given in 1986, never materialized.

That is what happened. In 1986, they said there were about 2 million people here illegally. We set up a system to grant them amnesty. We changed some laws to supposedly make the immigration system more lawful in the future. When amnesty was handed out, turned out to be 3 million people were here illegally. We had a big percentage of those who claimed amnesty, and who got it--got it on fraudulent claims--when they really were not entitled to it. That is the history of immigration reform in 1986--20 years ago. So we need to make sure, this time, when legislation passes, it will actually work. Isn't that what the American people want of us?

Another question we need to ask: How much will this bill increase legal immigration? Last year, the bill would have increased the number of green cards--that is, permanent resident status--the United States would issue over the next 20 years to 53 million. That would be 34 million more than the current 18.9 million scheduled to be issued under current law. That was last year's bill. It was just about three times the current rate of immigration.

Now, I have to tell you, Professor Borjas, at Harvard, has written a book, ``Heaven's Door.'' He is at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, himself a Cuban inmigrant as a young man. Professor Borjas has indicated he thinks that 500,000 per year would be the right number for America, economically and otherwise. That would be 10 million over 20 years, not 53 million over 20 years.

When it came out of committee, it was even worse. It would have increased the immigration levels by elevenfold--up to 217 million over 20 years. It actually could have gone that high under the bill as written. My staff--Cindy Hayden and her team--ran these numbers, and they were later confirmed by the Heritage Foundation. We had amendments that brought it down to 53 million.

So we do not know what the green card increases will be in the bill being talked about now. It is a critical question. So we need time to study that issue and make sure the numbers of people coming into our country are assimilatable, and also do not plummet the wages of American workers, particularly middle-class and lower middle-class workers.

I am telling you, the numbers indicate that low-skilled workers in the industries where there are large amounts of illegal immigration have not shown wage increases. In fact, in many instances, adjusted for inflation, wages have gone down. We had expert testimony on that. From 2000 to 2005, wages in categories of workers, where immigration is heavy, showed a net decrease in income.

So that only makes sense. If you bring in large amounts of low- skilled labor, you can expect the value of low-skilled labor in the United States to go down. I do not think the average American believes and expects that immigration reform will result in a large increase in immigration. I am pretty sure they think we are working on a comprehensive plan to create a legal system that works, and they probably expect immigration will be reduced, not tripled. So we have to look at that question.

Another question would be: Will the temporary program be temporary? Last year's bill contained a ``temporary'' worker program that was, in reality, a low-skilled permanent migration program for 200,000 workers, plus their families, annually. This is the bill that is on the floor today that we will vote cloture on next week. Workers and their families were given 3-year renewable visas. They could bring their families into the United States. They could be sponsored by their employer, the first year they are here, for a green card, to become permanent residents in the United States. They could continue to renew those temporary worker 3-year visas indefinitely, as long as they were working and did not have a felony conviction. So in last year's bill it was not a temporary worker program. It was a plan to bring in workers who were put on a virtual automatic path to permanent residence and citizenship.

What will this new bill contain? We hear different things. One is that it contains a 3-year visa, where workers are allowed to bring in their families--I am not sure we can look our voters in the eye back home and say we are going to sponsor such a program again this year.

Additionally, if we set aside 10,000 green cards a year for these new ``temporary'' workers to apply for--as I am hearing the bill may do--I am sure we cannot claim our intention is to create a temporary plan. So I am worried about that.

All I would say to my colleagues is, let's be sure we have enough time. There is no reason for us to have to

vote a week from this Friday on final passage of a 1,000-page bill that we have never even seen the language of yet. The only bill that is out there is last year's fatally flawed bill. Why can't we have this opportunity to review the new bill?

I have argued we should move dramatically in the way that Canada moved to create a merit-based system for immigration, based on skills and abilities, which countries such as Canada or the United States would deem helpful to their nation.

If we have 100 people who want to come to our country, and we cannot accept 100, we can only accept 50, why wouldn't we set up a system that asks them what skills and attributes they have that might be beneficial to our country--which would allow them to most flourish and benefit from the American experience? Why wouldn't we ask that and give preference to those who would come here?

I say to my colleague, to show the bankruptcy of any idea that we could have open borders, in the year 2000, we had 11 million people apply for 50,000 diversity lottery slots. We have an amazing situation, if you want to come to America, and you do not qualify in any number of ways, you can put your name in a pot, and each year we draw out 50,000 names. We had 11 million people in 1 year apply for those slots. So why wouldn't a merit-based system work?

Today, only 20 percent of the immigrants coming into the United States are admitted based on their skills. Canada went through a long period of discussion about this issue. They had a national discussion over some years, and the Parliament in Canada directed their government to establish a point-based system. Canada wanted that point-based system to ensure that 60 percent of the people who come into Canada come on a merit basis. Canada still takes those for humanitarian relief, Canada still takes other immigrants such as those with family connections, but in Canada that is much more limited than in the United States.

That was their plan. They are very happy with it. I have met with the person who actually runs that program. They are happy with what they did. They think it is something we should consider. They think we would be happy with it. We are hearing discussions that would be a part of this package. What a great step that would be if we would move in that direction. It is critical to me that more immigrants be selected on a point-based system as part of comprehensive immigration reform. It is something for which I have advocated for some time now and think we could actually get there. I am hearing some good feedback about it. But, once again, we need to read the language of the new bill.

I would point out a couple things. One, what I am hearing is the best they would expect to get to would be 40 percent of the immigrants would be coming into our country based on merit, not 60 percent like Canada. Australia also does that, with 60 percent of their immigrants coming into their country on a merit-based, on a point-based system.

I am concerned that we will end up with a system that will not be effective to move us to a more merit-based system, which would serve our long-term national interests and would ensure the people who do come to America come with every prospect and every ability to flourish in our country and to do well, and not only not be a drain on our medical system or our welfare system, but actually be prosperous taxpayers contributing to the health and vitality of our Nation.

I think I saw Senator Boxer in the Chamber a few moments ago. I will wrap up, if she is available, but I do not see her on the floor at this moment. I will share a couple more thoughts I do think are important.

Last year, we did not get a final CBO score until 3 months after the passage of the bill. The August 18th CBO score estimated the bill would cost $126.9 billion for the first 10 years, and that ``beyond 10 years, definitely the costs would escalate.''

That is a major factor in what we are doing, and we have not even, to my knowledge, asked for a score from CBO, and I do not think we can ask for a score. We cannot ask for a score because we do not have bill language to say what is going to happen. We do not even know what is in the bill that will be dropped on us.

Another issue that was quite contentious last year, and I believe is very important: Will illegal aliens who worked here under a fictitious name and fraudulent Social Security number be able to get Social Security benefits?

Last year's bill would have allowed current illegal aliens to get Social Security benefits for the time they worked illegally in the United States.

In addition to the predictable fraud on the Social Security system that would result from this provision--there would be no way you could identify with certainty who paid with what Social Security number if you are using false numbers--this concept is fundamentally unfair to the millions of Americans who rely on Social Security as their main form of retirement income.

Our Social Security system is already in peril--$6.8 trillion will already have to be invested by Congress today to have enough money to pay all of the program's promised benefits between 2017 and 2081. So it is not a program that is financially sound.

To provide millions an opportunity to make a claim to receive Social Security benefits when they were illegally in the country--utilizing a fraudulent Social Security number, illegally taking employment when they were not entitled to it, perhaps taking a job from an American worker--to be rewarded with Social Security benefits, I believe, is not required.

Basic law--having handled a number of cases that dealt with it--is that one cannot benefit or go to court to enforce an unlawful contract. If you are a drug dealer, you cannot sue another drug dealer to enforce a promise to pay for drugs. You should not be able to have a claim against the Government based on your fraudulent conduct and then go to court and file a lawsuit to enforce that claim. That is just a basic principle of law, so any bill that offers a compassionate solution for the illegal alien population should draw the line at allowing those who come to our country illegally, utilizing false Social Security numbers, to receive benefits because it is unjust. And, how could you ever calculate that?

I will mention one more thing and will wrap up. What about the earned-income tax credit? Will that be available to temporary workers or illegal aliens given status under the bill?

The earned-income tax credit is a benefit designed to assist low- income Americans. I do not believe it should be provided to foreign workers who we invite to perform labor in our economy, whose own choice was to come and work here.

The cost estimate released by CBO last August calculated that last year's bill would have increased outlays for refundable tax credits by $24.5 billion in the first 10 years because most of these workers are on wage scale rates that qualify for the earned-income tax credit. It would be the largest direct spending effect in the entire bill.

Now, the earned income tax credit was a plan conjured up by President Nixon a number of years ago and has some legitimate basis. Many people--conservatives--like it, and some don't. But it was designed to help working Americans make extra money so they could take care of their families. It costs us $40 billion a year. It is one of the biggest programs we have.

I see no reason in policy or equity that says if a person comes to America to work at a job at a certain wage rate and they would generally know what that wage rate is before they came, that they ought to be given an earned income tax credit, a credit designed to encourage American citizens to work. What kind of sense does that make? So we had a vote on that last year, and the vote was to continue to give this benefit, even to temporary workers.

These are some of the issues I think are important. We are going to treat compassionately the people who are here illegally, try to work something out that is acceptable to them on any reform; we are going to try to do the things that Americans want to do in terms of generous and fair treatment to everybody. But we don't need to go overboard and put things in the bill for political correctness or other reasons that don't make common sense, that threaten our Treasury, that could drive down the wages of American workers,

that could increase the flow of workers into our country to a degree that is much larger than we have seen in the past, and that would not move us effectively to a more merit-based system like our neighbors in Canada have adopted.

Those are some of my concerns. I value and appreciate the hard work of the people who are working to try to make a bill come together, but I want people to know that it is a scary thing. I think it was the Chinese who said, in defining crisis, it is a crossing of danger and opportunity. Yes, we do have an opportunity to produce a bill that could be far better than last year's bill--a bill we could all support, that could actually work, that we could be proud of. I actually think that is possible. This year's framework for a bill is certainly a lot better. I am excited about that. But I have to tell my colleagues from what we are hearing about the language that is actually going into the bill, we could have big print rubric letters that promise this and promise that, but when you read the fine print, it is not there.

We owe the American people an honest, hard study of any legislation we vote on. If that legislation is not produced until next week, even if we get an outline of some kind tomorrow, that is not enough time for us to study it.

I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts. I sincerely hope that a compromise can be reached, and I hope it is one that will serve the United States.

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

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

Mr. President, over the last couple of months, we have been debating the policy in Iraq, and over the first 4 months of the 110th Congress, the Senate has spent many days debating this policy. I and many other Senators believe we should move in a new direction and change the policy by transitioning the mission to training Iraqi forces, fighting terrorists, and protecting our troops and civilian personnel in Iraq.

As part of this new policy, we should have a phased redeployment strategy to begin the process of winding down the war to get our brave combat forces home. Our troops have accomplished every mission in Iraq. They have done their job. It is well past time that the President, his administration, and this Congress do our job as they have done their job in Iraq.

The war has diverted our attention and resources from the broader war against al-Qaida and its allies which continues unabated 5 years following the horrific events of September 11. Despite this administration's exaggerated rhetoric in the months leading up to our invasion, Saddam Hussein's regime

did not have any direct ties to al-Qaida, and our decision to topple his regime without international support drained resources from our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan. The Bush administration's inexcusable lack of planning for a postwar environment and the stunning incompetence in managing the occupation gave birth to a large, mostly Sunni-based insurgency in Iraq. This insurgency, aided by a steady flow of foreign fighters, is now giving birth to a new generation of al- Qaida terrorists providing ideological inspiration for extremists around the world.

The Presiding Officer knows, as well as so many others, that contrary to the administration's rosy rhetoric in 2002 and 2003, the decision to invade Iraq has served as a major setback in our overall struggle against Islamic extremism and the terrorism that movement inspires. Dr. Bruce Hoffman, one of the world's leading experts on terrorism, who recently briefed me, has declared:

The United States' entanglement in Iraq has consumed the

attention and resources of our country's military and

intelligence communities at precisely the time that Osama bin

Laden and other senior al-Qaida commanders were in their most

desperate straits and stood to benefit most from this

distraction.

For that reason, it is essential that we get our Iraq policy on the right path by beginning to redeploy our U.S. combat forces, emphasizing training of Iraqi security forces, protecting our forces, and engaging in targeted counterterrorism missions.

The war against al-Qaida and its extremist allies continues on multiple fronts around the world. This is a generational battle, so our Nation must respond accordingly. Vice President Cheney, seeking to validate the administration's counterterror efforts, declared last fall:

I don't know how much better you can do than no attacks in

the last 5 years.

Every American is grateful that the Vice President's statement continues to hold true. We must salute those men and women in our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement networks, from State and local police forces to the FBI, who have helped protect our Nation against further attacks. To take one example, it was skillful surveillance and old-fashioned gumshoe work on the part of the CIA and FBI agents, closely cooperating with their British counterparts, which allowed us to stop in its tracks a chilling plot to blow up as many as 10 airplanes crossing the Atlantic in August of 2006.

Unfortunately, the absence of terrorist attacks in the United States does not signify any reduction in the overall threat posed by al-Qaida and its allies waging battle on behalf of Islamic extremism. The dangers our Nation still face today were brought home by two developments in recent days.

The Presiding Officer knows this well because of the State he represents. First, six men were arrested last week for conspiring to launch an attack on Fort Dix in New Jersey and ``kill as many soldiers as possible.'' This homegrown cell of Islamic extremists was broken up when two of the defendants sought to purchase assault weapons from an undercover FBI agent. They had engaged in small arms training at a shooting range in the Pocono Mountains in my home State of Pennsylvania.

Second, another development. Late last week the U.S. Embassy in Berlin issued a general threat warning indicating that a terrorist attack against U.S. military or diplomatic facilities in Germany may be in the final stages of planning. This plot may be linked to the upcoming G8 summit to be held in Germany later this summer.

We have all seen the press reports indicating fresh evidence that al- Qaida is once again establishing training camps in southwest Asia, only this time in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Although we achieved successes in late 2001 and 2002 in cutting off al-Qaida's hierarchy from its foot soldiers around the world and severing operational links inside the organization, these gains are slowly disappearing. Instead, we see the chain of command within al-Qaida reemerging with fresh evidence of plans of potential terrorist strikes in western Europe and perhaps even our own homeland.

Just listen to what the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. McConnell, declared in recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

We also have seen that al-Qaida's core elements are

resilient. They continue to plot attacks against our homeland

and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass

casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections

and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders'

hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East,

northern Africa, and Europe.

The deadly reach of al-Qaida was reaffirmed with April's coordinated explosions in and around the capital of Algeria, killing 24 and wounding more than 200. A group calling itself al-Qaida in Islamic North Africa claimed responsibility for the blasts, a severe blow to a nation that was finally coming out of the ashes of the horrific civil war in the 1990s.

Mr. President, we know in order to neutralize this reconstituted and possibly more dangerous version of al-Qaida, the U.S. must embark on a global counterinsurgency campaign which recognizes that military force is an essential, but not sufficient, response to this threat. The U.S. must draw on all elements of our national power--military, political, and economic--in a coordinated campaign that seeks to deny refuge and sanctuary to al-Qaida forces wherever they reside.

The Third Way National Security Project recently released an insightful report that calls for a global constriction strategy against al-Qaida--an effort to suffocate the al-Qaida movement and pressure its physical resources, its people, and its vehicles of propaganda--all in a unified effort to shut down al-Qaida's ability to wage war through large-scale acts of terror. We can accomplish this strategy through multiple methods: doubling the size and increasing the skill sets of our Special Forces troops, working with other nations to more effectively crack down on terror financing flows, and, finally, getting serious on public diplomacy so that we can counter and refute the hate- filled messages from extremists at every turn.

Recently, former Senator Gary Hart suggested that we should create a fifth military service branch which would unify all Special Forces under one command, an idea worthy of consideration and further study.

We also need to send a firm message to Pakistan that the United States cannot tolerate the return of al-Qaida training facilities anywhere in the world. If such camps are on sovereign Pakistani territory, then it is the responsibility of the government in Islamabad to ensure that those camps are shut down. General Musharraf has been a partner of the United States, and his government has played a valued role in some of our most notable counterterrorism successes. But we cannot abide any backsliding when it comes to this issue.

Al-Qaida is not only reconstituting its networks and operational capabilities, but it is also making gains in the broader battle of ideas--the clash between modernity and reason and extremism and jihadism. These are two very different worldviews fiercely competing every day for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. America will win the war against extremism when we persuade the citizens of Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other nations of the strength of our ideas and values and offer a path away from militancy and irrational hatred.

But we have been going in the wrong direction on this front. We only need to recall the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when the world united with us in grief and sympathy. Who can forget that grand headline, in France of all places, on September 12, 2001: ``We are all Americans.'' The United States had a historical opportunity to unite the world in a common cause against the forces of terrorism and extremism and destroy the al-Qaida network and the twisted beliefs that serve as its cornerstone. Instead, by pursuing a black-and-white, our- way-or-the-highway approach, this administration helped transform our Nation's greatest asset--the appeal of the American spirit around the world--into a liability.

America today evokes feelings of resentment and distrust, negativity and hostility. Instead of building a grand international coalition on behalf of the values that unite us, the White House settled for temporary and weak ``coalitions of the willing'' that have left us far too isolated.

Since 2001, the Pew Global Attitudes Project has tracked on a regular basis

how America is perceived overseas and global attitudes toward the U.S.- led war on terrorism. Across the board, we have seen a dramatic decline in positive views toward the United States and, even more troubling, the American people. This decline has been especially marked in the Islamic world, where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida enjoy far stronger favorability ratings than our Nation. In both Morocco and Jordan, both relatively moderate Muslim nations, a 2005 poll found that approximately half of respondents in both nations believe suicide attacks against Americans in Iraq are justifiable. In Indonesia, positive views of the United States plunged from 61 percent to 15 percent in 1 year alone--from 2002 to 2003. Unfortunately, those numbers have barely edged upward in recent years.

Something has gone terribly wrong when a vile terrorist organization is in a more positive light than our great Nation. That is, apparently, what some surveys show across the world. I understand that the United States is the biggest guy on the block and a certain level of resentment will always exist. Yet, we cannot succeed in this global struggle against terrorism and extremism if our own ideas and our own image are viewed in such distorted, negative terms. We must recommit ourselves to a global public diplomacy campaign that conveys our Nation as it truly is--a beacon for liberty and hope. Our efforts will succeed when we inspire those currently sitting on the fence in the Muslim world to reject the false ideals that al-Qaida and its brethren promote. In waging an offensive against al-Qaida, our ideas will be as important as the might of our military forces.

While we must wage a strong offensive against al-Qaida and its extremist allies, we cannot neglect a strong defense here at home. Combating terrorism requires a strong homeland security effort, to ensure that our Nation can effectively defend and deter against attacks that can kill or injure tens of thousands of Americans in one strike. Unfortunately, homeland security has long been an afterthought for this administration, instead used primarily as a rhetorical weapon against its political opponents. The Department of Homeland Security's ineffectual record and poor performance bear witness to this neglect.

It is easy to forget that this administration fiercely opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, instead arguing that a small office in the White House could adequately do the job. The administration long resisted the full implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations--a serious oversight that the 110th Congress has sought to rectify, with both the House and the Senate passing comprehensive legislation to help ensure that all of the commission's recommendations are finally put in place. When it came time to replace Tom Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security, the White House put forward as its first choice Bernard Kerik--a political hack with a checkered past--only to withdraw the nomination days later after a series of embarrassing disclosures on his personal background.

The Department of Homeland Security has lacked the necessary budgets, leadership, and political support required from the White House to do its job properly. Although the administration created a brand new department to coordinate homeland security policy, overall funding for homeland security programs barely grew after DHS opened its doors in early 2003. The upper echelons of the Department have constituted a revolving door with industry, as senior political appointees spend only a year or two in their positions before cashing in on their contacts and joining lobbying firms and technology firms with interests before the Department. We saw the culmination of this neglect and indifference in the Department's shameful response to Hurricane Katrina in the fall of 2005.

Although I do not sit on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I take a strong interest in these issues, as they are vital to my constituents in Pennsylvania. And so I believe there are three key areas where this Congress can take further action to help ensure that our Nation is better prepared to protect itself against a future attack. First of all, we must ensure that our limited homeland security dollars are spent wisely. Although I respect the general principle that Federal spending must be allocated in a manner fair and proportionate for all 50 States represented in this Chamber, we cannot treat homeland security funding as just another Government program. It is an undeniable fact, one emphasized by the 9/11 Commission, that some States, some cities, and some targets are at significantly greater risk to attack than others. And so we must allocate our homeland security funding on a risk-focused basis.

During the Senate's debate on the 9/11 Commission bill, I was proud to stand with the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and others in fighting for an amendment that would revise our funding formulas to ensure that homeland security dollars flow, first and foremost, to those cities and States with the greatest at-risk targets. Although this effort failed, I was pleased to see that we have made progress since the last Congress and encourage the House-Senate conference to ensure that risk-based funding provisions be included in the final bill.

A second area of strong concern to me is the prospect of terrorists transforming our chemical plants and hazardous material rail shipments into lethal chemical weapons. A Congressional Research Service report indicates that there are at least 16 chemical plants in Pennsylvania where a release of toxic chemicals could cause over 100,000 deaths, and two plants where such a release could result in over a million deaths. This threat has been brought home in recent weeks as we see insurgents in Iraq engineering large explosions of chlorine tankers to spread noxious fumes in populated areas. These attacks are growing in sophistication and lethality and I worry that they may provide a blueprint for similar attacks in the United States. Therefore, I am encouraged that the Department of Homeland Security released its final regulations on chemical plant security earlier this month. These regulations are a good start, but we need to do much more. In particular, we need to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Security Office receives far more than the paltry $10 million it was appropriated for the current fiscal year.

It is also essential to permit those state and local governments which wish to adopt even more stringent protective measures to do so. The regulations issued by the Department are somewhat ambiguous on this point, and so both Houses of Congress have endorsed language that preserves the right of State and local governments to ``preempt'' Federal regulations so long as they are not in direct contradiction. This language would permit the Department of Homeland Security to establish a minimum floor for chemical security regulations, but, yielding to the best principles of federalism, allow individual State and local governments to go beyond those minimum regulations where appropriate.

Finally, it is incumbent that our Nation takes steps to once and for all ensure that our first responders have reliable access to secure interoperable communications. After 343 firefighters and paramedics gave their lives on 9/11, and countless victims died during Hurricane Katrina, because emergency personnel were unable to communicate with each other, it is unacceptable that we have still failed to establish a nationwide interoperable communications system that will allow local, State, and Federal first responders to communicate with each other in a seamless and uniform fashion. For this reason, I am proud to join my distinguished colleague from Arizona in cosponsoring S. 744, the SAVE LIVES Act, a bill ensuring that an additional 30 MHz in the 700 MHz spectrum band be dedicated to public safety.

The SAVE LIVES Act would require the Federal Communications Commission to auction 30 MHz of the spectrum, which is otherwise scheduled to be made available in January 2008 for general commercial purposes, under a conditional license requiring any winning bidder to meet detailed requirements to operate a national, interoperable public safety broadband network. A commercial provider can use this broadband spectrum for commercial purposes, but must make available the

spectrum for public safety purposes whenever it is needed.

I am proud to be the first cosponsor on this important legislation. I strongly urge the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to take up this bill immediately, because we don't have time to lose. Pursuant to a previous congressional mandate, the FCC must auction spectrum in the 700 MHz band by January 28, 2008. Unless this bill passes in some form beforehand, all of that spectrum, with a small exception, will be auctioned off to commercial providers, with no requirement that any of it be made available to first responders for public safety purposes.

Secure, interoperable communications is an issue of particular interest to my constituents in the city of Philadelphia. Currently, first responders are unable to use their radios in the tunnels of the city's subway and commuter rail system, SEPTA. The city has applied for DHS grants in past years to wire the tunnels to facilitate communications, but those applications have been rejected. I intend to work with the city and other members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation to ensure that the fifth largest city in the Nation is prepared for any potential emergency in its transit system.

There are a number of other strong policy proposals that I urge this Congress to consider to further strengthen our Nation's homeland security. I do not have the time today to discuss them in further detail, but at a minimum, we should take a serious look at the following areas:

Ensuring that we inspect the air cargo transported by passenger airlines to prevent terrorists from planting a bomb in a plane's underbelly; strengthening our border security with better technology and additional Customs and Border Patrol agents; working with the private sector to develop real incentives for both large corporations and small businesses to adopt commensense solutions that mitigate the risks of an attack and thus make them less attractive targets to terrorists; undertaking a serious and comprehensive approach to locking up sources of nuclear missile material around the world to prevent our worst nightmare--an improvised nuclear bomb destroying an American city.

All of us remember where we were and what we were doing on September 11, 2001. The memories of that terrible day will remain with all of us so long as we are alive. Our Nation has been blessed that we he not had to endure another attack during the intervening 5 years, but we recognize that our friends in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East have suffered ghastly attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians and spread terror. The war in Iraq is at the center of our national discussion today, but we cannot allow it to distract us from the objectives the America people set out to achieve in the fall of 2001: destroying al-Qaida and denying legitimacy to the ideas of jihadist extremism.

It is time to refocus our attention and resources. Al-Qaida may not have mounted another attack against our citizens, but they have tried and are once again on the march. We must rededicate ourselves to a comprehensive strategy that seeks to constrict Al-Qaida's bases of support and undercuts their popular legitimacy in the Muslim world. On the home front, we must ensure that we are adequately prepared to deter and defend against likely attacks that seek to exploit our open society and sow panic and economic damage.

If America truly is engaged in a generational battle against the forces of extremism, our Nation must adopt a serious and comprehensive approach to counterterrorism, both overseas and at home. We owe the victims of 9/11 and their families no less--indeed, we owe the American people no less.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, a little more than 6 weeks ago, the Senate passed a supplemental appropriations bill relative to the war in Iraq. It contained provisions relating to the readiness of U.S. forces, such as ensuring U.S. military units are fully mission capable, that they are not deployed for combat beyond a year in the case of the Army, 7 months in the case of the Marines; that they are not redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within a year for the Army and 7 months for the Marines. The vetoed bill provided for a Presidential waiver of those limitations.

The vetoed bill also contained a very essential provision regarding troop reductions--first, a troop reduction requirement that would commence on October 1. That is the heart of the bill that was vetoed. We will commence finally to reduce the number of troops in Iraq instead of adding to the troops, instead of adding more military, instead of looking to a military solution, finally recognizing that there is no military solution, there is only a political solution in Iraq, and that it is up to the political leaders in Iraq to reach that conclusion.

We must put pressure on them, and the only way I know to put pressure on the Iraqi leaders is to tell them that the future of their country is in their hands, that we cannot save them from themselves, and for us to change the course by beginning to reduce the number of troops in a nonprecipitous way and to do that beginning in 180 days.

What that amendment did on the supplemental was also set a goal for the remainder of the troops who are going to be removed. Except for the limited missions that were set up, it set a goal to do that. It was not set in stone as to the precise moment all the troops would have to leave, and it avoided using the funding mechanism. We did that on purpose. We want to send a message to the troops that troops in Iraq, whatever they are, whatever are left, whatever are going to be removed that have not been removed at the exact moment in the Feingold amendment--troops are going to be supported.

We are going to support these troops. We are not going to use a funding mechanism to cut off funding for our troops. That was the way to go. We got 51 votes in the Senate for that approach. It was vetoed by the President.

Now we have an amendment that is pending. This amendment would provide essentially the same provisions: protecting our troops, funding our troops but also initiating the beginning of the reductions that are so essential to forcing the Iraqis to step to the plate and resolving their political differences.

This amendment that is pending, however, contains a waiver. The waiver provision in this amendment has caused some concern understandably. The only purpose for the waiver provision the President was given in this pending amendment was in order to avoid a veto, to get the funds there.

However, it will not avoid a veto. The security advisor to the President has told me that, as a matter of fact, the President still opposes it, although he has a waiver authority in this amendment. Because of that, it does not serve its purpose of avoiding a veto.

Because there is some confusion as to the waiver provision, as to whether there is any intent to weaken what we did when we passed the supplemental, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw my amendment. I understand it has been cleared on the other side. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and that cloture be vitiated.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today because there is a very serious situation facing Great Lakes shipping. In Michigan, and throughout the Great Lakes, there is a significant dredging backlog. The corps estimates a backlog of 16 million cubic yards at commercial harbors, which has had very real impacts to Michigan shipping. Several freighters have gotten stuck in Great Lakes channels; ships have had to carry reduced loads, and many shipments have simply ceased altogether. This problem stems in part from the way the corps' budget is prepared using performance metrics such as cargo value, tonnage, and ship miles. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Office of Management and Budget and the Army corps began implementing new budget guidelines and criteria for funding the operation and maintenance of commercial harbors that relied primarily on the amount of tonnage a harbor handles. Although I do not object to using performance metrics, I am concerned that the metrics currently used do not adequately account for the situation at smaller harbors, many with economies that revolve around the harbor. I filed an amendment yesterday that would help address this very serious situation. The amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Voinovich and Stabenow, would direct the corps to use all available data relating to economic impacts, and to not solely use the tonnage handled by a harbor.

I thank my colleagues for their recognition of the dredging crisis in the Great Lakes. I also thank Senators Boxer and Inhofe for their support of another amendment that I filed to this bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Voinovich and Stabenow, that would direct the Army corps to expedite the operation and maintenance of the Great Lakes navigation system. Although that amendment would be helpful to the overall Great Lakes commercial shipping infrastructure, I remain concerned that the corps is using budgeting criteria that simply do not reflect the reality of the Great Lakes shipping system. The Great Lakes should not be compared with ports on our coasts. Tonnage alone should not be the criteria for making budget allocation decisions. We should not have to fight for our smaller ports and harbors each and every year. These ports and harbors are of commercial importance with large economic impacts. The corps' use of an arbitrary 1 million ton cut-off for prioritizing projects is simply unfair. There are about 300 harbors in the Great Lakes that handle less than 1 million tons of cargo per year. Two-thirds of all shipping in the United States either starts or finishes at small harbors. About half of the Great Lakes corps-authorized harbors are classified as small ports. The amount of cargo handled should not be the sole factor in determining priority for funding. A small harbor may in fact have a much greater economic impact on a community than a larger harbor does. For example, Manistee Harbor on Lake Michigan is classified as a smaller harbor by the corps. It handles less than 1 million tons of cargo annually; it handles 940,000 tons. Yet, multiple companies rely on this harbor, including Morton Salt, and there are 600 jobs that rely on the freighter traffic at Manistee. For a city with a population of about 6,500 people, this translates into about 10 percent of the population that is economically dependent on this harbor. And yet the corps would classify this as a lower priority project because it handles less than 1 million tons annually. Is that what you understand the Army corps is doing?

We have a problem that urgently needs to be addressed. The corps is using a budgeting system that does not reflect the reality of the Great Lakes shipping infrastructure. I receive reports on a regular basis of how this dredging crisis is threatening our economy: The Wirt Stone Dock in Buena Vista Township, MI, reported a reduction of 25 percent in shipped tonnage. Tugboats have been needed to

turn boats around because channels have not been dredged, at a cost of $15,000 to $20,000 each week. After one freighter ran aground at Saginaw, MI, last year, the ship's rudder was torn off, and never found.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 2007, which authorizes important water projects for Michigan, the Great Lakes region, and the Nation. After waiting nearly 7 years since the last WRDA bill was passed, I am hopeful that this bill can make its way

through conference and be signed into law by the President.

I am pleased that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee included several of my requests in the bill and accepted one of my amendments. However, I want to emphasize that this is an authorization bill. The appropriations that are needed to make these authorized projects a reality lie down the road, and have not yet been secured. The next critical step in realizing these projects is to work to secure funding for these projects, which I intend to do.

Included in the WRDA bill is a provision that I filed as an amendment to the bill, which could help address a very serious problem facing the Great Lakes shipping infrastructure. Every year, hundreds of millions of tons of goods are transported through the Great Lakes waterways, and communities throughout the Great Lakes are economically tied to waterborne commerce. Unfortunately, however, the Great Lakes shipping infrastructure is threatened by a significant dredging backlog that has been exacerbated by historically low water levels. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates a backlog of 16 million cubic yards at commercial harbors, which has had very real impacts to Michigan shipping. Several freighters have gotten stuck in Great Lakes channels; ships have had to carry reduced loads, and many shipments have simply ceased altogether. The WRDA bill works to correct this situation by directing the Secretary of the Army to expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of navigation projects in the Great Lakes.

Dredging to the needed depths is critical. According to the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, a large freighter loses the carrying capacity of 8,000 tons of cargo for each 1-inch reduction in the load draft. A capacity of 8,000 tons can carry enough steel to produce 6,000 automobiles, enough coal to provide 3 hours of electricity for greater Detroit, or enough limestone to build 24 homes. That means that every dollar that can go towards maintaining harbors and navigation channels truly matters.

Although the navigation provision in the bill could be helpful to the overall Great Lakes shipping infrastructure, I remain concerned that the way the Corps of Engineers budgets for dredging projects is unfair to Great Lakes navigation projects, especially smaller harbors. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Office of Management and Budget and the Army Corps began implementing new budget guidelines and criteria for funding the Operation and Maintenance of commercial harbors that relied primarily on the amount of tonnage a harbor handles. I raised the Great Lakes dredging situation with the bill managers, and they have agreed to work with me to address this problem in the conference committee.

The bill also includes a provision that I have been working on for many years: the improvement of Michigan's water and sewage infrastructure. The bill includes $35 million for a statewide environmental infrastructure project to correct combined sewer overflows, which is a major source of pollution in the Great Lakes and other waterbodies in Michigan. Combined sewer overflows carry both stormwater and sewage, and these can be discharged into streams, rivers, and lakes during periods of heavy rains. The $35 million provision in WRDA authorizes the Army Corps to partner with communities throughout Michigan to improve their sewer infrastructure. These improvements would not only benefit communities, but would also help protect our precious water resources.

I am also pleased that the bill also authorizes a number of specific projects in Michigan. Of importance, the bill authorizes $20 million for the environmental restoration of Lake St. Clair. In 2005, the Corps completed a report outlining the steps needed in order to restore Lake St. Clair. This bill authorizes the Corps to implement the 2005 recommendations. The plan was drafted through a collaborative process by the stakeholders in the community, which will promote efficiencies and save Federal funds.

Section 1005 of the bill, which authorizes small projects for navigation, includes six important projects for Michigan. First, the Corps is authorized to reconstruct the harbor at Northwestern Michigan College in Traverse City, MI. The renovated harbor would support the operations of the Great Lakes Maritime Academy, our Nation's only freshwater State maritime academy, and vessels associated with the program, including the federally owned and operated T/S State of Michigan. The project would include dredging, construction of an eastern arm, reconstruction of the inner harbor area, and general site improvements. Second, section 1005 authorizes the Corps to dredge the outer channel and inner harbor of Menominee Harbor. Low lake levels, which have been prevalent in recent years, and present channel depth are threatening shipping vessels' ability to make deliveries and load at the commercial and industrial sites on the inner channel. This authorization will help support commercial navigation by authorizing dredging and other navigation-related projects to accommodate access to warehousing and commercial operations, which have loading docks on the inner river channel. The additional depth would benefit deep-draft commercial vessel traffic, which has increased over the years and is expected to continue to increase. Third, section 1005 authorizes the Corps to extend and deepen the Ontonagon Channel. The channel extension at Ontonagon Harbor is necessary to allow for better access to Ontonagon's port facilities. Currently, there is only one vessel that can handle the required volume of material for Ontonagon's industrial community that will enter the harbor. Other ships have to back into the harbor to reach the dock and are unwilling to do so because of the prevailing currents at the mouth of the harbor. This authorization can help protect the vital shipping infrastructure in Ontonagon. Fourth, section 1005 authorizes the Corps to make repairs and improvements to the Sebewaing River. The north bank of the Sebewaing River has deteriorated over the years, which is resulting in excessive sedimentation being washed into the river channel from the Saginaw Bay. This project would authorize the repairs, which would result in less frequent dredging being needed. Fifth, this section authorizes the Corps to dredge the Au Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda. This dredging is crucial so that boaters have access to local marinas, restaurants, and other businesses. Without this dredging, boaters could be prevented from accessing the river, which would be devastating for the tourism economy. Lastly, this section authorizes the Clinton River project, a navigation project that would decrease the amount of the time it would take boaters to get to Lake St. Clair.

Section 1006 authorizes a project that would improve the water quality and natural habitat of the Clinton River. The project would also examine a means to ``daylight'' the Clinton River under the city of Pontiac. In past years, the river was enclosed in a series of conduits under the city. By restoring the surface flow through the city, the river ecology can be restored, and economic development on the resulting waterfront be promoted.

Section 2037 authorizes the Corps to repair and rehabilitate the Hamilton Dam, located in the Flint River on the campus of the University of Michigan-Flint. Built in 1920, the dam is rapidly deteriorating and the prospect of dam failure and what that would mean to those living downstream continues to be a major concern. Authorizing this project is an important first step in making repairs to the dam.

Finally, section 4019 of the bill authorizes the Corps to study storm damage reduction and beach erosion protection projects along Lake Erie at Luna Pier, MI. The city of Luna Pier lies on the western end of Lake Erie in Monroe County, MI. The shoreline dike system and beach sills that were installed at Luna Pier continue to deteriorate because they are subjected to Lake Erie's severe storms. This study is a first step in making the necessary repairs at Luna Pier to provide adequate storm damage reduction, beach erosion protection, and flood prevention.

The Great Lakes are one of world's greatest natural resources, so I am very pleased that this bill takes some needed actions to protect and restore them.

First, the bill includes an extremely important provision to authorize the Corps of Engineers to complete the dispersal barrier in the Chicago Ship and

Sanitary Canal. In order to prevent aquatic invasive species, such as the Asian carp, from moving between the Mississippi River watershed and the Great Lakes, this dispersal barrier needs to be completed. Specifically, the Corps will be authorized to convert Barrier I into a permanent facility, to complete construction of Barrier II, and to operate and maintain both dispersal barriers at full Federal cost. The Corps is further authorized to study options for hydrologic separation while maintaining the movement of cargo and recreational vessels so that we can determine what a long-term solution should be.

Second, the bill reauthorizes the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation program and the Great Lakes Tributary Models Program. The Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation Program has allowed the Corps to provide technical support to States and Remedial Action Plan committees so that the United States can meet international obligations. Michigan has several communities that request this assistance from the Corps every year. Using the Great Lakes Tributary Models Program, the Corps has developed computer models to simulate the erosion, transport and deposition of sediments within a watershed, and can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of soil conservation and other source control measures on the loadings of sediments and sediment contaminants to Great Lakes harbors and navigation channels.

Next, this bill brings equity to both the John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program and the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program so that in-kind contributions count towards the non-Federal cost-share requirements of those programs. Further, the bill clarifies that any reconnaissance studies under the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program are to be performed at Federal expense. This was the original intent when the program was first authorized in 2000.

Lastly, this bill expands the type of beneficial use of dredge material projects eligible for inclusion under this authority. Dredging improves and maintains navigation channels in the Great Lakes and is used for other purposes such as waterfront construction, utilities placement, and environmental remediation. It only makes sense to use the dredge spoils for beneficial purposes rather than disposing of it in the middle of the lakes.

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

Mr. President, last November, the American people voted to end the President's one-man show in Iraq. I think the Chair understands that very well, given that he was victorious in November, and a lot of the questions surrounded what are we going to do about Iraq, this terrible failed policy.

Today, we have an amazing opportunity, and I thank Senator Reid for giving us that opportunity, to vote to end this war now, and to do it in a way that is responsible, to do it in a way that is gradual, to do it in a way that makes a lot of sense.

The Feingold amendment essentially shifts the mission away from a combat mission to a support mission. It is very clear the President will get the funding he needs for the following things. Our troops will be funded to go after al-Qaida. After all, that was the primary purpose we declared after 9/11, and I voted to go to war to get al-Qaida, and to get bin Laden. Then the administration took a U-turn and got us off course into Iraq.

Our military has been superb. They have done everything they have been asked to do, from searching for those weapons of mass destruction, ascertaining there were none; and then, apparently, the mission wasn't done. The President said, get Saddam. They got Saddam. Oops, the mission still wasn't done. After that, he said, get his family members and show them on television and show the people we mean business. But the mission still wasn't done.

Then there were three elections in Iraq, to give the Iraqis a chance to choose their own leaders. We train and train and train Iraqi soldiers and police, where there are now about 300,000. If they can't defend and protect their own country, if they do not love the chance to have freedom as much as we love it for them, then I say it is time to change this mission. Keep on going after al-Qaida. Yes, you can keep training those troops if they need our help in that, and force protection. Those would be the missions. The Feingold amendment gives us this chance.

The President has derided any attempt Congress has made to end this war. He says, why should politicians get involved with this? Well, let me say why I think the Senate should get involved. Because it is our constituents, just as it is the President's constituents, who are dying in Iraq. In front of my office door I have these large boards that list the names of the dead, and 21 percent of the dead were either born in California or they were based in California--21 percent. So I will not allow this President to tell me I have no right to try to end this war. I have every right to try to end this war, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues, as I did from day one when 23 of us said this war was a bad idea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 1 minute.

Mr. President, our Nation is grieving over this war. Every day when we wake up and turn on the TV or the radio, we don't know what other horror is befalling our troops. We have a country in Iraq where 70 percent of the people want us out of there, where a broad majority says it is OK to kill or wound an American soldier, where maybe 50-plus percent of the Iraqi Parliament says we should get out on a timetable.

It is pretty simple. When I was a kid, my mother said, don't go where you are not wanted. Enough is enough. We have given and given and given, in blood and in treasury. So I proudly stand before the Senate urging my colleagues to do the right thing, to vote for responsible redeployment, a responsible end to this war, and join me in voting for the Feingold amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask for 1 minute off the leader's time.

Mr. President, I thank my friend for his very articulate statement. I so agree with what he said. I want to make it clear to my colleagues, and I want to make sure my colleague agrees, that of all the options which will be before us, all well-intentioned, all worked on so diligently--some of my colleagues are here who did that--is it not a fact that the only one that will guarantee a change in the status quo is the Feingold amendment because all the others really lead right back to where we are today because the President is given total leeway to decide exactly what to do? Am I correct on that point, that if we want change, you have to vote for the Feingold amendment, if you want to end the war?

Mr. President, I wanted to give Senators and staff an update on where we are with the WRDA bill now that we have voted on these various Iraq resolutions.

Where we are now is that our work is almost done on this bill. We are down to the final amendments that are in the managers' package. One of our colleagues, Senator Coburn, is looking at about three or four of these amendments that he has some problems with. We are very hopeful we can work with him to resolve those questions because we have many items in the managers' package. We think about 10 or 12, or more, actually. So he is looking at four, and we are working with him to resolve them.

If we can resolve that, it would be a wonderful thing because we could get done with this bill. Senator DeMint has two amendments which we are looking at on our side, and we think we can work with those amendments. We think we can reach agreement on those amendments.

So here is where we are. This bill is being slowed down because of four particular items in the managers' package that Senator Coburn is looking at right now and we are working with him. If we can resolve those questions, and we can certainly resolve Senator DeMint's amendments, we will be done with this bill, and we can roll them all into a managers' package, either do them by voice vote or have a recorded vote and then a final passage vote, which, believe me, would be welcome news for the workers and the businesses of our great country.

If we cannot resolve these remaining matters, we are very willing to have votes on those questions and we would like to start that this afternoon. We will just work our way through the six votes and see how it all comes out, but we are hopeful. We are going to give it another hour, hour and a half to talk to colleagues. I didn't want colleagues to think that Senator Inhofe and I weren't continuing to focus on this bill. We are. We are working our caucuses in an effort to get this done.

I am going to relinquish the floor, and we will be back as soon as we have some agreement on these remaining amendments.

I see the distinguished ranking member on the floor now, so we will have a chance to collaborate on where we stand, and I yield the floor for my colleague to speak at this time.

Mr. President, after many hours of work behind the scenes and with the help of some extraordinary staff which I will talk about later tonight, we have come to the point where we are going to get this important legislation, the WRDA bill, completed. We are at that point.

Amendment No. 1145

(Purpose: To modify certain provisions relating to water resources

development projects)

Mr. President, I, along with Senator Inhofe, have a managers' amendment at the desk which has been cleared by all sides. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this package of amendments be printed in the Record as if read.

I further ask that upon adoption of this amendment, no further amendments be in order; that the substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time; that upon passage, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with a ratio of 6 to 5; and that the vote on passage occur at 5:15 p.m. today, notwithstanding rule XII, paragraph 4, with the above occurring without further intervening action or debate, with the time until 5:15 equally divided and controlled between the chair and the ranking member or their designees.

Mr. President, this is a wonderful moment for me as the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I have to say I wouldn't be at this point without the amazing work of my ranking member, Senator Inhofe. Everyone knows there are times when we don't see eye to eye on certain issues, mostly around the environment. We get that. But when it comes to making sure the infrastructure of this Nation is where it should be, there is really no daylight between us.

I think it is very important to note that both Senators Landrieu and Vitter were determined to show us their needs for Louisiana, and both Senator Inhofe and I are very pleased we were able to work with both of them. We know we haven't met every single need, but we have taken an enormous step in that direction.

I mentioned the staff earlier, and I want to mention their names--my staff director, Bettina Poirier, and my deputy staff director, Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, and Tyler Rushforth. On Senator Inhofe's staff, I thank Andrew Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, and Let Mon Lee. Additionally, I thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and Paul Wilkins with Senator Baucus and Mike Quiello with Senator Isakson.

This has been a bipartisan endeavor. This has not been easy. Some day, when I write my book on how a bill really becomes a law, I will let everyone know what it really takes to get a bill like this done, a bill that is 7 years in the making. We need to get it done. Senator Inhofe and I are going to get into that conference committee with our colleagues, and we are going to iron out the differences and hopefully be back here with the final product.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I agree with the Senators from Michigan and Ohio that the corps needs to address this dredging backlog. I also agree that the corps should make their budget decisions using all economic data available and not based only on an arbitrary tonnage limit. While the bill managers were not able to reach an agreement on an amendment, I will work with the Senators to ensure that Great Lakes dredging issues are addressed when the bill is in conference.

I agree that we have a problem here, and I will work with you in conference to address this situation.

How much time is left on my side, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I would love to hear from Senator Isakson because he has been a champion in assisting us and working on this. We are fortunate to have him as ranking member on the subcommittee.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I yield 8 minutes to my colleague from Louisiana. She has been such a fighter for her State in all this. There isn't a day that has gone by since the very day of the disaster that struck when she hasn't come up and told me: Senator, you need to come and see and you need to help. I am so fortunate I am in a position to help, along with Senator Inhofe. This is a bill that is so important for her State.

I thank Mary Landrieu for all the contributions she has made. I yield to her 8 of the 9 minutes I have left.

All right, in 3 minutes 17 seconds, I want to say again how happy I am. I am smiling from ear to ear because this has been an amazing road. I think it is important to note that when we started out, we had a little surprise from the CBO that both Senator Inhofe and I were surprised about--that our last bill had some open-ended language that we didn't realize. We had to make this fiscally responsible. We did.

Senator Inhofe is a man of his word. He said these are criteria I want. We have to make sure these projects have studies; that the local people want them and there will be a local match; that they stand up to the light of day. I agreed with him. Once we were able to agree on those criteria, the rest became easy because we had to tell people no, but we did it not on a whim but on a set of criteria that we agreed to.

Our staffs have come to know each other very well while working on this. So between the staff and colleagues coming and telling us what they needed, I think we have a bill that meets everybody's needs.

In closing, I thank Senator Landrieu for her comments because I think, as we look at this bill, clearly--and there is a lot of talk about priorities--we get our priorities straight. There are amendments we defeated that said we don't like the priorities. This bill looks at Louisiana and says you are our priority. That is important. We did it.

I wish to thank the groups and organizations outside the Chamber that helped us by writing letters of support and encouraging our colleagues to work with us: The American Society of Civil Engineers; the Audubon Society; the Building and Construction Trades; National Waterways Conference; the National Association of Manufacturers; the American Farm Bureau; the National Construction Alliance, made up

of the labor union; the National Union of Operating Engineers and Carpenters and Joiners; the Associated General Contractors of America.

It is rare that you have a bill that garners the support of so many from across this great country of ours. But it is about making sure that the WRDA infrastructure in this country is up to the task it faces. We have to be ready for whatever hits us by way of floods, hurricanes, disasters. We have to be ready for ecosystem restoration and all the rest. I left out the corn growers, who supported us also, and they sent us a letter. So from the corn growers to the carpenters, this is a bill everybody wants.

I hope my colleagues will come over, and I hope we get a huge vote in favor of this bill and we can go into conference, where we will have six Democrats and five Republicans, and we will sit down with our counterparts and bring a product back that everybody can be pleased with.

I think we are about ready for the vote; is that correct?

Mr. President, I just want to say to all of my colleagues that this was a wonderful vote tonight, and I think the country will be very grateful because it has been 7 years since we have had a Water Resources Development Act. We desperately need to keep up the country's infrastructure with our needs, and this bill is a wonderful step in that direction. We are all set to go to conference with the House. I have already had some conversations with Congressman Oberstar. We are looking forward to getting this back and moving forward.

Again, to the staffs on both sides, thank you so much. To colleagues on the committee, thank you very much. To, of course, the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, I want to say again that without his partnership we never could have come to this point. I think every State in the Union will be grateful because we worked together across party lines to achieve something that is 7 years in the making, something that we really needed--this water resources bill.

I thank my colleague very much.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I do wish to say, as I mentioned before, not only did the principals work well together, but the staffs did as well. I got to know the staff on the other side of the aisle. I really have enjoyed working with them. They are very fair. They represent their boss very well.

One thing about the staff across the aisle here is they have respect for each other. They tell each other the way they feel. It is the only way to work around here. You are only as good as your word. We had some tough moments here.

I also wish to thank the floor staff. I don't want to start naming names, but the floor staff on both sides were so helpful, because for me, this is my first major bill I ever managed, so clearly I needed a little direction. I am very fortunate to have all of this support from both sides of the aisle. I will mention Lula and Dave just because I happen to see them in front of me.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, in these dangerous times, we face terrorist threats around the world. The decisions we make here in the Senate must put us in a stronger position to fight and defeat terrorists wherever they hide. Just last week, the United States and German Governments unraveled the reported plot to attack American interests in Germany. This development reminds us that we face dangers all around the globe, and we need to be able to dispatch our resources wherever and whenever they are needed to keep us safe.

Unfortunately, having nearly 150,000 American troops stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq does not strengthen our ability to fight terrorists from around the globe. In fact, by forcing our troops to police a civil war and by not giving our troops the equipment and training they need, the President's current policy is impairing our military readiness and our ability to fight and win the broader war on terror. It is time to refocus our efforts back on to the broader war on terror. Yes, we will still fight and defeat the al-Qaida terrorists who are in Iraq. But we recognize that terror networks exist in many other countries, and we have to fight and defeat terrorists in those places as well.

That is why I supported the Feingold-Reid amendment this morning. That amendment recognizes that leaving our troops in the middle of a civil war in Iraq is not the best use of our military. It doesn't make us safer at home, it diminishes our ability to fight the broader war on terror, and it impairs our military readiness.

It is clear the Iraqi civil war cannot be solved militarily. It must be solved politically. Today we are 5 years into this war. Thousands of American lives have been lost, and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent. Yet the Iraqis have not moved forward with meeting key benchmarks and beginning reconciliation. We have to show the Iraqis that we will not police their civil war indefinitely and that they must take responsibility for their own future. The redeployment language of the Feingold-Reid amendment from this morning makes it very clear to the Iraqis that our commitment is not open-ended and that they must make the necessary compromises to bring peace to their country.

In Iraq, our troops have done everything we have asked them to do. Now it is time to begin redeploying our troops, rebuilding our military, and getting back to fighting the war on terror.

As I look at these issues, I see four imperatives: First, we have to fight and defeat terrorists; second, we have to recognize the war in Iraq is impacting our ability to do that; third, we have to rebuild our military readiness, which has been seriously compromised by this war in Iraq. Finally, we have to be there to support our servicemembers, our veterans and their families, every step of the way.

First of all, we all recognize that we are in a war with terrorists around the world and we need to fight and win that war. This is not a war against countries. We are in a war against terrorists wherever they reside. President Bush wants us to believe the war in Iraq is the war on terror. It is not. The war on terror that our country faces is not the same thing as the civil war that is raging in Iraq. What is happening in Iraq is primarily a civil war between factions that have been in conflict for generations. The Feingold-Reid amendment empowers our military to target and destroy any terrorist elements in Iraq, but it would not force the majority of American troops to be stuck indefinitely in the crossfire of a civil war.

As we look at the terrorists our Nation confronts, al-Qaida is the most dangerous, according to the declassified National Intelligence Estimate from last year.

That NIE report said:

Al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the

homeland and U.S. interests abroad by a single terrorist

organization.

The NIE also said the jihadists ``are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion. If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.''

Al-Qaida is the threat. We have to get back to fighting al-Qaida, and that is what the Reid-Feingold amendment would allow.

Under that amendment, while most troops would be redeployed, some would remain to conduct targeted operations against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. They would provide security for American infrastructure and personnel, and they would be allowed to train and equip the Iraqi security forces.

This administration's focus on Iraq has distracted us from the larger war on terror, and it has left us vulnerable. Our country faces possible threats from terrorists around the world, and we need a security strategy that ensures that we can fight those threats wherever they are. But, instead, the Bush administration has become increasingly focused on Iraq, which weakens our ability to fight that broader war on terror just when we must be strong.

Next, let's look at the relationship between the civil war in Iraq and our own security. Does having so much of our military tied up in Iraq's civil war make us safer? Does it help us fight terrorists around the world? The truth is, leaving our troops in Iraq is not making us more secure.

A State Department report from 2 weeks ago found:

International intervention in Iraq has been used by

terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist

activity that has contributed to the instability in

neighboring countries.

According to our own State Department, our involvement in Iraq is making the region less stable, not more stable. The war in Iraq has the potential to make it harder for us to respond to other threats around the world. That is because the conflict in Iraq is tying up large parts of our military and is degrading our military readiness, which brings me to my third point.

We must rebuild America's military. We can all be proud that our country is home to the finest fighting forces in the world. But we must also face the truth. The war in Iraq has impaired our military readiness, and that is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of military leaders and experts who say it may take us, now, 5 years to rebuild our military.

The Iraq war has impaired our readiness by forcing a hard-to-maintain tempo on our troops, by destroying our equipment, by reducing the capabilities of our Guard and Reserve, and by limiting the training that our troops receive. Today we are forcing a very tough tempo on our servicemembers. They all want to work, and they all want to work hard. But we have to

make sure the demands placed on them are reasonable. The Pentagon has extended tours of duty for our troops. It has deployed troops sooner than planned. It has sent troops without all the training and equipment they should receive. It has deployed troops without the downtime at home that our servicemembers and their families deserve.

Two Army brigades are on their fourth deployment now to Iraq and Afghanistan. That tremendous pace with little downtime in between is a strain on our troops. Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address those strains on our servicemembers so we can remain the best in the world.

The Iraq war is also impairing our readiness by destroying our equipment. The Army, for example, is supposed to have five brigades' worth of equipment prepositioned overseas, but because of the war in Iraq, the Army is depleting those reserves. GEN Peter Schoomaker told the Senate just last month:

It will take us 2 years just to rebuild those stocks.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the strains on equipment so we can remain the best in the world.

The Iraq war has especially impacted the readiness of our National Guard. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Stephen Blum, testified that the readiness of National Guard forces is at a historic low. He said:

Eighty-eight percent of the forces that are back here in

the United States are very poorly equipped today in the Army

National Guard.

A national commission looked at the National Guard and Reserve and sent its report to Congress last March, a few months ago. The commission said:

We believe that the current posture and utilization of the

National Guard and Reserve as an ``operational reserve'' is

not sustainable over time, and if not corrected with

significant changes to law and policy, the reserve

component's ability to serve our Nation will diminish.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the readiness of our Guard and Reserve so we can remain the best in the world.

We also rely on our Guard members when disaster strikes at home. We need their trained personnel and equipment to respond quickly. After the horrible tornadoes that occurred in Kansas just a few weeks ago, the Governor of Kansas said recovery efforts for those two States were hampered because there were not enough personnel and equipment. Where were those resources? In Iraq, not here at home.

COL Timothy Orr of the U.S. Army National Guard told the Senate that his brigade's homeland security capabilities have been degraded.

He testified to us:

Our ability as a brigade to perform these homeland missions

continues to be degraded by continued equipment shortages,

substitutions, and the cross-leveling of equipment between

the State and the Nation to support our deploying units.

I have shown now how the Iraq war has impacted the readiness of our troops, of our equipment, and of our National Guard. The pace of deployment to Iraq is also hindering another measure of readiness--the training that our servicemembers receive.

To meet the President's surge, the Pentagon has been sending some troops to Iraq earlier than was planned, and they are keeping other units there in Iraq longer than planned. That means our troops are getting less time at home, less time between deployments, and importantly, less time to train. Commanders are forced to shorten the training their troops receive so they are focusing now only on specific training that they need for Iraq, but not for other potential conflicts.

That makes sense if there is limited training time. We want all that time devoted to their most immediate need. However, many military leaders are now warning us that this fast pace diminishes our ability to respond to other potential conflicts. Here is how the colonel who commands the First Marine Regiment put it:

Our greatest challenge is and will remain available

training time, and because that time is limited, our training

will continue to focus on the specific mission in Iraq. This

has, and will continue to, limit our ability to train for

other operations.

Army COL Michael Beech told the Senate in April that he believes our training strategy is broad enough to support a variety of other events. But he added:

However, if deployed in support of other emerging

contingencies, I would be concerned with the atrophy of some

specific tactical skills unique to higher-density conflicts.

We have military commanders telling us that they are concerned that our ability to train for other missions has been limited and certain tactical skills have atrophied. We don't know what the future of our world brings. We don't know what types of conflicts we will need to be prepared to fight. It is our responsibility, as leaders today, to be preparing for whatever the future brings for the next generation. By allowing our troops to only now be trained for today's mission, we are not meeting our responsibility for the long-term dangers our country must be prepared to defeat.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we have to address these training shortfalls so we can remain the best in the world.

I am also concerned at the billions of dollars that we are spending in Iraq, coming at the expense of our ability to be strong at home. I am very concerned that the Bush administration has chosen to fund this war in ways that have meant that homeland security priorities at home have not been fully funded. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to try to correct that in areas such as port security grants and first responder funding. But it is not easy to overcome years of misplaced priorities from this administration.

Let me share with you some of the examples from this President's latest budget proposal. President Bush, in his budget proposal to us, dramatically cut funding for first responders to pay for the war in Iraq. His budget cut critical State homeland security grants by $348 million, or about 60 percent, to pay for the war in Iraq. He reduced urban area grants by $185 million--that is a 25-percent reduction--to pay for the war in Iraq. He cut our local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants by $119 million. That is a cut of 33 percent at home to pay for the war in Iraq.

Mr. President, we know funds are limited, so we have to be smart. Policing a civil war in Iraq should not come at the expense of our security right here at home.

Finally, as we fight and win the war on terrorism and we rebuild our military, we have to be there every step of the way to support our servicemembers, our veterans, and, importantly, their families. We need to meet their needs every step of the way from the day they are recruited, while they are being trained, when they are deployed, and, importantly, when they transition back here at home.

Today, too many of our servicemembers are falling through the cracks and not getting the support they deserve. That is why I have been working on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee to identify those needs, to fund them, and to have the appropriate policies so we support those men and women who have so strongly supported us.

At the end of the day, our security comes down to people, people doing a job this country has asked them to do. We have to keep our promise to them. We face terrorist threats around the world. We must and we will defeat them. But to do so, we have to be smart and we have to be tough.

Unfortunately, the civil war in Iraq is not making us more secure; it is making us less secure. We need to refocus our efforts back on the war on terrorism and we need to rebuild our military. I supported the Feingold-Reid amendment this morning because it sets a new direction for our involvement in Iraq so we can refocus on the larger security challenges our Nation faces.

This is what I am fighting for in the Senate. I know we can do it. We can take care of our men and women in uniform, we can improve security right here at home, we can track down and eliminate terrorists around the world. It is a matter of getting our priorities straight.

Redeploying our troops from Iraq so we can focus on those other priorities is a critical first step in the Senate we have to take.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The Senator from Vermont.

I thank the Senator from Vermont.