A resolution reaffirming the constitutional and statutory protections accorded sealed domestic mail, and for other purposes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I am back here today, as I have been other days this week, to talk about the Medicare drug benefit and the debate about whether the Government would do a better job of negotiating with drug companies than the prescription drug plans that are doing so this very day under law of the last 2\1/2\ years. Over the past 2 days, I have talked about the fundamental structure of the drug benefit. I talked about the heart of it, of the drug benefit plan, as competition. Plans, with vast experience in negotiating with drug manufacturers, compete to get the best drug prices for Medicare. That is what is happening today to benefit our senior citizens. Plans that have been doing this for 50 years are negotiating with drug companies in a competitive way to get the best prices for Medicare senior citizens. To date, the proof is in the pudding. We have lower bids, we have lower beneficiary premiums, lower costs to the Government, and lower costs to our States. Most importantly, we have lower prices on drugs, meaning senior citizens get affordable drugs and low-income people do not have to choose between drugs and food. Remember, that was a goal we had in 2003 we passed this legislation.

I will give some examples of how this competition has worked. A draft PricewaterhouseCoopers study found in 2006 prescription drug plans achieved higher savings, 29 percent compared to unmanaged drug benefit expenditures. That is almost 100 percent greater than the 15-percent savings projected by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and almost 50 percent greater than the savings estimated by the Congressional Budget Office way back when, in 2003, when we all thought if this program worked at all there would be some savings on prescription drugs for seniors. However, it has turned out to be much greater savings than we anticipated when we wrote the bill.

It isn't often that legislation we write comes back with a better benefit to the taxpayers, better benefit to our seniors or any group or population. Most often there are what we call cost overruns.

I believe it is fair to say that competition is working.

Yesterday, I talked about how this whole debate is based on nothing more than a distortion of language in what is called the noninterference clause in the existing legislation. This noninterference language was first included in legislation introduced by many of the same people now opposing it, and these people tend to be led by Members of the Democratic Party.

To be clear, that language, the noninterference language that people now are questioning, that period of time between 1999 and 2003, bills introduced by Members in the other party included this language and now, somehow, they do not like it.

I want to be clear that the impressions left by opponents of this part of the legislation that we do not have competition, we do not have negotiations, this language in the legislation does not prohibit negotiations to get drug prices down. Negotiations occur between private plans and the drug manufacturers regularly. You could not get those percentage decreases in prices I just mentioned--those percentages that are even greater than percentages we thought when we wrote the legislation--you would not get those without negotiation, you would not get those without competition.

I, also, pointed out in earlier speeches, so far, proposals to have the Secretary of HHS negotiate drug prices have not been shown to actually save

any money. Our beloved Congressional Budget Office tells us that they cannot project savings by having a Government bureaucrat negotiate instead of plans negotiating. Nevertheless, here we are, in the new Congress, discussing this matter once again.

What I want to do today is put forward a picture of what Government negotiations might look like. Admittedly, doing this will require some speculation. Why is that necessary? It is necessary because Democrats have not provided many details on how they actually envision their requirement that the Secretary negotiate how that will work. This is despite the fact that some opponents of the noninterference clause have demagoged this issue for nearly 3 years. After 3 years, they are still out there saying the noninterference clause ought to go, but there are no details on how their plan will work. They have given us a few clues as to their thinking on how they want it to work.

For the longest time, I heard it said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should have the power to negotiate drug prices, as the Veterans' Administration does. With the Veterans' Administration as our guide, let's talk about the VA's approach to purchasing drugs and then ask you to consider, after you hear this, do you want to do it that way? This discussion will be somewhat technical, but I urge listeners to bear with me because we need to get beyond the Veteran's Administration sound bite. Everyone needs to have a good understanding of what this would mean for Medicare.

It is a fact that the Veterans' Administration uses different purchasing arrangements to get discounts on prescription drugs. But there is a big distinction between these purchasing arrangements. The Veterans' Administration has access to what we call the Federal supply schedule prices. Under the Federal supply schedule prices, the Government guarantees by law that it must get the best price in the marketplace. This means that the Federal supply schedule prices cannot exceed the lowest price that a manufacturer gives in comparable terms and conditions to a non-Federal customer such as the pharmacy benefit manager. Since that is technical, I will go over that once more. Under the Federal supply schedule, the Government guarantees by law that it must get the best price in the marketplace. But what this means is that the Federal supply schedule prices cannot exceed the lowest price that a manufacturer gives under comparable terms and conditions to a non- Federal customer, and that could include health plans, pharmacy benefit managers, and many others. Under Federal law, manufacturers must list their drug on the supply schedule to qualify for reimbursement under Medicaid.

Next, the VA can purchase drugs at the Federal ceiling price. Again, the Government passed a law to guarantee itself an automatic discount no one else can get. By law, that price is automatically 24 percent less than the average price paid by basically all non-Federal purchasers.

Isn't that a nice negotiating tactic? Pass a law and guarantee yourself a discount. The logical questions are, why not have Medicare access the Federal supply schedule--because people who want to do it such as the VA, that is where it takes you. Why not give Medicare the Federal ceiling price?

I will refer to a chart because experts have looked at this question, and we have assigned the Government Accountability Office to look into this. They had a year 2000 report on this. They say:

Mandating that federal prices for outpatient prescription

drugs be extended to a large group of purchasers, such as

Medicare beneficiaries, could lower the prices they pay but

raise prices for others.

In other words, raising prices for everybody else in America that is purchasing drugs. You heard that right: Raise prices on everybody else.

Who would face the higher prices under ``everybody else''? Small businesses, their employees, their families, to name a few. Those higher prices would likely force employers to reduce their prescription drug benefit or stop providing health insurance coverage altogether. Of course, that is an outcome I surely hope people want to avoid, but it may be an outcome that the proponents of doing away with the noninterference clause are not aware of. Or the people that are saying we ought to follow the VA practice may not be aware, that to save the taxpayers some money you are going to raise the price of drugs on everybody else in America, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The Government Accountability Office reached its conclusion by examining what happened to drug prices after Congress required drug manufacturers to pay rebates to State Medicaid Programs such as the Federal supply schedule, the Medicaid rebate program guarantees that the Government gets the best price in the marketplace.

What happened after the law was enacted? The best prices went up for everyone else. The practical effect was twofold: First, the size of rebates for State Medicare Programs got smaller. What the Federal Government wanted to accomplish to benefit the States did not happen. Second, other purchasers paid higher prices. One might ask why that might happen. Here is why: Drugmakers had to eliminate their best prices to private purchasers or face bigger rebates. That happens because if they gave 1 purchaser a best price, they then had to give the best price to 50 State Medicaid purchasers. One discount to a private purchaser could mean millions that a manufacturer would be forced to pay in rebates to the Government.

What do you think the drug companies did to counteract a well- intentioned act of Congress which ended with unintended consequences? The drug companies eliminated all the deep discounts so that they did not have to pay as much in mandatory rebates to Medicaid.

A 1996 study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined the extent to which the Medicaid laws result in higher drug prices to everyone else. Listen to what our Congressional Budget Office concluded:

Best price discounts have fallen from an average of over 36

percent in 1991 to 19 percent in 1994. Hence, although the

Medicaid rebate appears on the surface to be attractive, it

may have had unintended consequences for private purchasers.

The Federal Government passes a law to do good, and we find out we end up not doing so good. Almost a 50-percent reduction in best-price discounts; is that good? A nearly 50-percent reduction in the discounts received by purchasers such as health plans that serve employers and their employees; is that good? Of course, it is not. What this means is when those deep discounts went away, the price that everyone else pays for drugs went up. So those mandates, rebates to Medicaid made drug prices for everyone else higher.

Talk about unintended consequences. And we in the Senate who set these things up had the right intentions for doing it, but it has not worked out--unless you want to look at the good it did to the Federal Treasury and not count or not discount the harm it did to everyone else who paid higher prices.

To state it more simply, when discounts to a large purchasing group are based on discounts to another, no one gets a good discount. That is what the Government Accountability Office said in its 2000 report:

Extending the Federal Supply Schedule . . . could also

raise the prices paid by private and federal purchasers, as

increases in prices, manufacturers charged their best

customers would, in turn, increase Federal Supply Schedule

prices.

Would opponents of the noninterference clause believe the congressional agencies, such as the CBO and the Government Accountability Office, that striking the noninterference clause would not be good? Ironic, isn't it, when the Government used price controls to mandate discounts to itself, it actually makes prices go up. I will go through that again. When the Government uses price controls to mandate discounts to itself, it actually makes prices go up. No person in their right mind concerned about the Federal Treasury or concerned about the cost of drugs to people in this country would say that meets the commonsensical test. But that is what happens.

During a 2001 hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, my colleague, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Arlen Specter, posed a question on this very matter. He asked whether adding Medicare to the VA and Department of Defense purchasing mix would produce greater

bulk discounts. The Veterans' Administration chief consultant for its Pharmacy Benefits Management Strategic Health Group answered that adding Medicare to the Federal Supply Schedule umbrella would result in increased drug prices for both the Veterans' Administration and the Department of Defense.

So, now, in addition to the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, the Veterans' Administration weighs in for itself, and the Department of Defense, that doing what repealers of the noninterference clause want to do will actually increase drug prices to the Veterans' Administration and the DOD. And people want to use the Veterans' Administration as a pattern to affect Medicare. So that is saying it for the third time.

If I could say it for another time, straight from the Veterans' Administration's mouth, itself: Extending VA prices to Medicare would make the VA's own drug prices increase.

And for one last time, the basic point they are making is, if you try to mandate discounts to everyone, then--what I have said a few minutes ago--no one gets a discount. Now, I am no economist, but that is basic economics. And not only that but it is common sense.

I think I have pretty much laid out why including Medicare in the Federal Supply Schedule is not as good an idea as its proponents may have made it out to be.

So now I want to go back to how the Veterans' Administration uses competitive bidding to get the discounts they say they want to use as a pattern for the Medicare Program.

Let me start by giving you an important piece of information. The Veterans' Administration has its own pharmacy benefits manager. More than a decade ago, as part of a major initiative to improve the care delivered, the Veterans' Administration formed a pharmacy benefits manager, better known around here as a PBM.

So you will probably wonder why they did that. Because, as stated in the VA news release, they wanted to maximize a strategy used by the private sector. You have people who want to have Medicare do it like the VA does it, but the VA set up a very special program because they wanted to learn something from the private sector.

A primary responsibility of the PBM for the Veterans' Administration was to develop a national formulary. The Government learned that from the private sector, the very same people they are finding complaints about now. They wanted to set up a national formulary.

A formulary is the list of drugs that a plan will cover. Basically, if your drug is not on the list, it is not covered.

A 2005 article in the American Journal of Managed Care, coauthored by the Veterans' Administration's staff and university-based researchers, stated that the Veterans' Administration created the national formulary to achieve two main goals.

First, the Veterans' Administration wanted to reduce the variation in access to drugs across its many facilities throughout the United States. In other words, they wanted to put a VA bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient. Doctors could not subscribe to everything that they thought that patient might need because if it was not on the formulary, they could not prescribe it.

Second, the VA wanted to use the formulary as leverage to get lower prices for drugs. Let me repeat that because it is important. The Veterans' Administration created a national formulary to create the leverage it needed to get lower prices for drugs.

That goes back to the point I made a couple days ago. The ability to get good discounts does not result from the sheer number of people a purchaser buys for. The ability to get good discounts comes from how the purchaser leverages those numbers. That leverage comes from a purchaser threatening to exclude a drug from the formulary. So it eventually comes down to threats.

The Veterans' Administration uses its formulary to say: Give me a better price or else--or else we are not going to buy your drugs at all.

As I said earlier, the Veterans' Administration was intentionally adopting a private sector strategy when it started using a formulary to get lower drug prices. The Medicare prescription drug plans also use formularies to negotiate lower drug prices. The most important thing about the VA formulary is that it is one big national formulary.

The biggest difference between the VA and Medicare is that beneficiaries have choices.

Let me make that clear. The biggest difference between how the VA does it and how the plans do it--the plans that are approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the senior citizens of America and Medicare--the biggest difference is the beneficiaries have choices. They can choose their plans with different formularies. So Medicare bureaucrats are not coming between the patient and the doctor like VA bureaucrats are coming between the patient and the doctor. You can run into this in your town meetings because I had people come up to me and complain about the VA: My doctor says I ought to have this drug because the drug that the VA wants me to take has side effects.

And they come to me and say: How come the VA won't pay for this drug because it is better for me, according to my doctor?

And their answer is: Because the VA wants to save money. So you have a Government bureaucrat deciding what is best for your health instead of your doctor.

But the principle behind the prescription drug bill that Senator Baucus and I wrote was that we were not going to have the bureaucrat getting in the medicine cabinet of a person, of senior citizens. We wanted every therapy available. That is the way it is written, and that is the way it is being carried out. So I wonder if people who say you ought to change this and do it the way the VA does it know how you are negatively affecting the senior citizens of America.

The way senior citizens can do it is they have choice. They can enroll in a plan that covers their drugs. They can enroll in a plan that allows them to use their neighborhood pharmacy. The VA does not do business with every pharmacist in America. So you are hurting your local pharmacist when you do business that way.

Under the Veterans' Administration programs, veterans do not have a choice. They cannot choose a different plan, and they have to use the VA's own pharmacy, not the pharmacy down the street. Using a limited number of VA-controlled pharmacies and mail-order pharmacies also helps keep VA costs down.

But one of the things we wanted to accomplish in the prescription drug bill, Part D, was to make sure the Government did not use its leverage to hurt local pharmacists. And we put several things in--a requirement you had to have a brick-and-motor pharmacist in every plan. So we have some requirements to help pharmacies that the VA does not even worry about. And I have to confess to the community pharmacists of America, we still have a lot of work to do to help them so they benefit from this program like we intended. There are some unintended consequences to what we did, even considering the fact we took the community pharmacists into consideration.

Under the VA program, then, you do not have a local pharmacist to go to. When they do not use the local pharmacist the way we do, when they use all these mail-order pharmacies, they hurt the local pharmacist, but they are saving some money.

Also, there is limited access to drugs, limited access to retail pharmacies. That is how the VA works. So do you want to force that upon the senior citizens of America?

I would like to go to another chart now. The Los Angeles Times put it best in an article on November 27 of last year. According to the Los Angeles Times:

VA officials can negotiate major price discounts because

they restrict the number of drugs on their coverage list. . .

.In other words, the VA offers lower drug prices but fewer

choices.

So do you want to offer fewer choices to our seniors? That is not what we wanted when we wrote the Medicare bill. We wanted to keep CMS bureaucrats out of the Medicare medicine cabinet of every senior citizen.

So what would it mean if the Government negotiated lower drug prices for Medicare in a national system like the Veterans' Administration? It would

mean having a more limited formulary. And it would mean having the Veterans' Administration bureaucrat between you and your doctor.

So I would go to a chart that would make this more picturesque and more clear to you. This chart shows what this would mean. It would mean that instead of having 4,300 drugs available to them, beneficiaries would have about 1,200 drugs available. If Medicare used a national formulary like the VA, it would mean that 70 percent of the prescription drugs could not be covered by Medicare. Only 30 percent of the drugs covered today would be covered.

Then let's get into some specific drugs, about major problems we are trying to treat today, such as diabetes or cholesterol. There, too, if the Government negotiated for Medicare like it does for VA, it would mean fewer drugs covered by Medicare.

In the case of treatment for depression: 65 percent covered; 35 percent not covered. In the case of treatment for high cholesterol: 54 percent covered, 46 percent not covered. It seems that by looking at these drugs, if the Government used the VA model, our senior citizens would not be as well served.

Now, maybe you can make an argument we are not treating our veterans right. We appropriate more money every year for veterans health programs. And we have to because the needs are there and we made a promise. We have to keep the promise to the veterans. But I think veterans watching this could say: Well, why not cover these? Why not cover these? Well, I have given the reason. We want to save taxpayers money. But it is completely opposite what we wanted to accomplish under the Medicare bill to serve our senior citizens: everything being available, and to save the taxpayers money through competitive bidding.

This could also mean that beneficiaries could not get their prescriptions filled at the most convenient pharmacy for them. That is not what we wanted when writing the bill. We put seniors first. Those who want to repeal it, it seems to me, they are putting bureaucrats first, or at least they are putting bureaucrats between the doctor and the senior citizen. In many cases, those realities have led Medicare- eligible veterans to enroll in Medicare drug programs so they will have coverage for drugs not covered by the VA.

When I held my town meetings as we were rolling out this new drug program, I had veterans say: Well, does this mean I have to get out of the veterans program?

I said: If you are satisfied with the veterans program, you can stay in it. You do not have to do anything. If you decide later on you want to get into one of these programs, you can do it without penalty.

So they had the best of both worlds. If they were satisfied with the VA, keep it. But we have evidence that some of them are leaving the VA program to join the program of Part D Medicare. Even though many veterans have very good drug coverage, almost 40 percent of the veterans with VA benefits and Medicare coverage are enrolled in Part D. So when you get beyond the easy sound bites, when you get to the facts, applying the VA system to Medicare is neither as easy as it sounds nor will it likely have the effect that the proponents suggest.

It now appears that even they have begun to figure this out because now, when the rubber hits the road, when they have to produce something, they introduce a bill--and I am referring now to a bill of the other body--that explicitly prohibits the Secretary from creating a formulary.

In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported last week that a House Democratic leadership aide said, ``We felt we couldn't go as far as the Veterans Affairs [Department] does.''

Under the House Democrats bill, Medicare can't have a formulary. As I tried to make clear here today, the drug formulary is the key to negotiating lower drug prices. The House Democrats bill prohibits the Government from having a national formulary. No formulary means no negotiations, no leverage over drug companies. In reality, the Democratic proposal on negotiation actually prohibits the Government from negotiating. Under their plan for Government negotiation, the Government won't be able to say no to a drug company. With no formulary to bargain with, the drug companies could say something like this: No, why should I give you that price if you can't exclude me or charge higher cost sharing?

At the same time, the House Democrats bill repeals the prohibition on the Government setting a pricing structure. So if the Government cannot negotiate because it can't have a formulary, if there is no prohibition on Government price structure, where does that leave us? Sounds like price controls to me. Experience shows that when the Government sets prices for itself, when it gives itself mandatory discount, prices go up for everyone, higher prices for everyone else. Why would anyone want that sort of a situation?

Everyone always asks, why not have Medicare work like the VA program to get lower drug prices. I think I have laid out why that idea might not be as good as the proponents have made it sound. Having Medicare work like the VA could mean fewer drugs covered, restricted access to community pharmacies, more use of mail-order pharmacies and higher drug prices for everyone else. I can't imagine that is what people want.

So where does that leave us? The Medicare plans are working today. I say that based upon several polls that show 80 or so percent of the seniors are satisfied. The plans are also delivering the benefits to Medicare beneficiaries. These private sector plans have the experience of negotiating better prices. These Medicare negotiators have proven their ability to get lower prices. The Medicare plans are negotiating with drug companies using drug formularies within the rules set by law, and the formularies are basic for that negotiation.

Last week on the Senate floor, the Senator from Illinois said that the law ``took competition out of the program so that [the drug companies] could charge whatever they want.'' That is not true. We have the 50-year experience of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program negotiating for every Federal employee to keep costs down to the citizen as well as to the taxpayers. We patterned it something like that. And quite frankly, when we patterned it for the senior citizens under Medicare, I wasn't entirely sure we would get all the plans interested, that we would have the competition we ended up having. It has worked beyond our expectation. And thank God it did, because I am not sure we had that kind of expectation out of it. But it sure worked. Thank God something worked a little bit better than we anticipated it would work.

So we had a Senator saying that we took competition out of the program. Competition is what this program is all about, and that competition is working. Costs are lower. Premiums are lower. Let me quantify how premiums are lower, because when we were writing the bill in 2003, we were figuring at what price, somewhere between $35 and $40 a month, could we get seniors to join. Over that, we would have problems. Competition has brought it in at $23 last year and $22 this year on average. So these organizations remain in the best position to get lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

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

What is the pending business, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment to the Reid amendment No. 4.

I have the amendment at the desk, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, the current Senate rule requires Members to pay the cost of a first-class plane ticket for travel on a private plane. The amendment does not substantially reform our lobbying laws, and this amendment will place an undue burden on Members from rural States, at great expense to the taxpayers.

Most Members who take private flights do so to complete official business. These flights enable Members from States such as Wyoming, Montana, and my State of Alaska access to rural areas. Our State does not have the infrastructure found in more densely populated States throughout the country. Many of our constituents live in communities that cannot be accessed by road. We need to fly to these remote communities.

Despite this rule, or any other rule, these flights are essential and will continue and must continue to take place. This amendment will not provide meaningful reform. It will increase the amount of money Members need from the Treasury to pay for these flights. The taxpayer will foot the bill for the amendment, and the only real change will be more money in the pockets of those who own and operate the private planes.

Those representing States with less-developed infrastructure and many geographically remote communities--my friends from other rural States and even some large States such as California--have this problem. It is a unique problem. It is essential to take flights into these rural areas because there are no roads to get there.

In Alaska, almost 80 percent of our towns and villages cannot be accessed by road year-round. Even our State capital, Juneau, can only be reached by boat or by plane. There are few scheduled commercial flights a week to many villages in our State. Our State uses planes the way people in the lower 48 use cars, buses, and taxis.

It is literally true. If I took a Senator to Bethel, for instance, and wanted to go upriver to visit some of the mines or the small villages, there is only one way to get there, and that is by plane, and in many instances a floatplane. But these are still private aircraft and would be banned by this amendment--or the actual cost of the operation of the plane would be required to be paid, but I would be paying that from taxpayers' funds, not from my funds but from the taxpayers' funds if this amendment passed.

Flights on private planes are necessary in our State, particularly when traveling to areas which are only accessible by private planes or by long boat rides in the summertime. Along the great rivers such as the Yukon or the Kuskokwim, you could take a boat. It would take you several days to wind up those rivers to go to a village you might be able to fly to in 30 minutes.

I use private planes to visit constituents who cannot afford to come to Washington to visit with our congressional delegation. On many occasions, I am asked to come to these villages to talk to them about their problems, and I can only go there by private plane. I use private planes to view the conditions in rural communities and villages. For instance, this last October, I visited the village of Kivalina in my State to view the catastrophic damage caused by winter storms there.

Now, at times we do have available the Air National Guard planes. But in times of war such as this right now, to use these National Guard planes puts a substantial burden on the Guard because so many of their people are deployed.

Now, I can recall several occasions when I have traveled with other Members on private planes to show them areas of our State which were subject to important legislation. These trips have been invaluable to our deliberations on the floor.

I recall taking a group of Senators on a CODEL--``congressional delegation;'' that is ``CODEL''--to Prudhoe Bay to help them understand Alaska's oil industry. There is no public access to Prudhoe Bay and no commercial flights. We must fly in on an industry plane.

We continued the CODEL. After we got there--we went up by their jet-- we took a helicopter flight over the Coastal Plain of ANWR. Now, that, again, was about an hour and a half flight, out and back, on a helicopter. That flight was on a private helicopter, owned by some entity within the oil industry there at Prudhoe Bay. Had this proposed amendment been in effect, that trip would not have been possible, as the cost of the trip would have been prohibitive.

Now, other people were going up there anyway and we flew up on their plane to Prudhoe Bay.

On the helicopter, they wanted us to go out and see these conditions where drilling would take place. But it would not have been possible for the Senators who were our visitors to see this area firsthand. The area we went to and had them look at is an area that currently is producing 16 percent of our Nation's energy. If you want to go visit that industry in Oklahoma or somewhere like that, you would go to a town by commercial aircraft and you would get probably in a private car and they would drive you out. I doubt that you would have to have a helicopter. But what I am saying is, our conditions require air where other people use buses, taxis, or private automobiles.

There are countless examples of how we use these airplanes. For instance, about 3 years ago, I went along on a flight that was going to Bethel, AK. This is an area out in the Kuskokwim Delta area of our State. The person who asked me to go with him wanted me to personally experience the use of a capstone variant. A capstone is a system that has revolutionized the airline safety industry in our State. In the 1990s, for instance, an airplane crashed on average every other day in my State. We had an aircraft-related fatality every 9 days. Capstone and these related technologies, which make cockpit technology available to the pilot to know what is going on and what the threats are, have reduced these airplane crashes by 40 percent.

The reason I went along was they wanted me to see that system and to experience it so I would understand it and support the money the FAA was

going to ask for in terms of development of these new technologies.

I went out to Valdez several times on an industry airplane to review the 1989 oil spill in my State, once in a Coast Guard jet. That was my first flight to see that fantastically horrible and great disaster. But we went out several times to try to figure out what to do with our oversight of the oil spill itself. We went out in a private airplane. I also recently took a flight from Point Barrow, which is at the top of our State, the farthest north portion of our State, over to Nome, which is out on the peninsula, and it is a flight--there is no scheduled service between those two places. It is about 300 miles. If I had not taken that flight on a private plane, I would have gone down to Fairbanks from Barrow, gone to Anchorage, and then flown back up to Kotzebue and come down to Nome. It actually saved the taxpayers money. This was an official business trip that saved the taxpayers money by going the same way on a private plane, and we compensated the owner of that plane under the current rule with the equivalent of a first-class fare between those two places, had there been such a scheduled flight in the first place.

For instance, the flight from Anchorage alone to Nome is 540 miles. It is farther than from here to Chicago. I think that is about 500 miles. Anyway, if this amendment passes, I have to ask the Senate, what should we do, those of us who represent rural areas such as this? I don't think the Senate expects us not to respond to a constituent's request, particularly an organized area such as a village or a city, to come view the conditions in their area when they believe they need Federal assistance. We have to take planes to get to such areas.

Last October, I visited several communities along the west coast of Alaska that had been damaged by severe storms, and we used a combination of commercial, charter, and private aircraft. We worked out what was the best advantage to the Government and used different types of aircraft as we went on that trip. I saw firsthand the problems of erosion that are going on there and learned about the needs of those places, particularly the problems these villages will face in the future if continued erosion takes place and they have to move back from these barrier islands on which they live. My charter cost alone, one way from Kotzebue to Bethel, was $1,500. That was the charter cost which we paid on the equivalent because there was no scheduled flight there, a 3-hour flight, more than triple the total cost for commercial and private flight combined. Had this amendment been in effect, there would have been no way that I could have justified spending taxpayers' money for this type of transportation cost.

If a Member from another State is going from one town to another and someone is going to drive there, there is no provision that anybody would have to pay for the cost of going in an automobile to another town. The effect of this amendment now would be that whenever I use an aircraft that is a private aircraft, I would have to repay from the Treasury, by asking for the funds, to an organization with a plane that was going to fly there anyway.

I think our current rule is very fair. It says we pay the operator of those airplanes the equivalent first-class fare to travel from point to point in our State. It would be unreasonably expensive to apply the provisions of the pending amendment to our State.

It is particularly burdensome because of our Senate rules. I don't think many Members think about this. Our office allowances are based on population, not the distance we travel within our State. We would have to pay from our allowances. And each Senator gets a maximum allowance per year from the Senate. This amendment, if enacted, will mean that my budget will run out in the first month or two of the calendar year. It would not permit us to travel to these remote communities throughout the year. It would simply become too expensive to deal with going to these communities to listen to their complaints and to view them and to be able to report to the Senate.

I believe that if a plane is going to a village in the direction I need to go, if there is room on that for my staff and me, we should be able to get on that plane and go see the problems they want us to see. And it is reasonable to compensate them at what it would cost to fly on a commercial flight, if there was one. That is what we have been doing. I have never had a complaint from anyone in my years here in the Senate traveling under the existing rule. Taxpayers, however, should not have to pay outrageous costs for us to do our business.

As a matter of fact, as I said, once we have exhausted our allowances, and coming from a State that has a small population but is enormous, this is going to be an enormous burden on those of us who represent our State.

I have hesitated to try to get an exemption for Alaska. I am not doing that. The amendment I have before the Senate will continue the current rule but would say that we can travel on a privately owned aircraft to the point where there is not commercial service, but we would have to go to the Ethics Committee and show there is no appearance or actual conflict of interest in taking the trip, and the trip would have to be approved by the Ethics Committee. I think that gives it a transparency. We not only will report after we take the trip, but we will get approval of the Ethics Committee before we take the trip.

There is a lack of commercial air service in many areas in the lower 48 that this would apply to, the larger States in the West in particular. We just do not have frequent flights between our communities that other States enjoy. We travel great distances to see our constituents. When I go west from Anchorage out to Shemya--that is the place where the X-band radar was going to be and where the current radars they operate in the North Pacific are, a former large air base that is not very large now--that is 1,200 miles. If I go out farther than that to Adak, it is almost 1,800 miles. If I fly from Anchorage to Unalakleet, the charter rate under the Reid amendment would be thousands of dollars. I should go to places like that at least once a year. I try to do that.

The effect of this prohibition against using these private planes unless we pay the charter rate is really very oppressive.

I do yield without losing my right to the floor.

The pending amendment will not improve the system as far as those of us from these rural States are concerned. It will hurt our constituents. I think it will punish the taxpayers.

Some have suggested that raising the cost of private plane travel is important because it gives the appearance of fairness. The reason is that citizens cannot fly on private planes, so we should not be able to fly on them, either. The difference is that a private citizen in my State doesn't have to go to Kivalina, doesn't have to go to Unalakleet, doesn't have to go to these places where changes are taking place as we speak. The whole Arctic is changing because of the current circumstances. I think the Senate is going to hear more about that. But as these changes take place, we must go there. We must try to take people from the administration there. We must try to get the Corps of Engineers and other agencies to go with us to see what can be done to meet the problems our constituents face.

I don't think there are many Senators who would have to visit four or five communities in one weekend that are so far apart. We usually only have a weekend to make trips such as this. If those of us who have to do this have to pay this charter rate, it is not our money, this is official business. If this amendment passes, I will be asked to spend part of the allowance I get to run my Senate office at enormous cost to pay the full cost of flying the plane on a charter rate even though there are other people in that plane who are already going on company business and they are willing to take us along on the basis of paying what would be the equivalent in terms of a commercial rate.

We need transparency. I support that. We want to try to do this without additional burden to our taxpayers. I think we should disclose flights on private planes, and we do. We disclose

them. Today we disclose. Under the current rule, we disclose whom we paid when we go on these flights. From my point of view, we ought to look at this amendment from the point of view of appearances, but it really is not totally appearances. It is necessity. If this amendment passes, we will face the difficult choice of either flying to remote communities at considerable cost to the taxpayer or to the State and the developed communities or failing to do the duty to those we represent who live in these remote areas. I think Alaska has probably the most pressing problems of any State in terms of the changes that are coming back because of global climate change. There is no question about that.

We will do everything we can to assist a Senator who faces problems such as that but not do it in a way that will increase substantially the cost to the taxpayers and reduce our ability to do our jobs as Senators. If I have to use this money to take those trips to these small cities, I will not have the money to do the things I would normally do--for instance, flying from here to Alaska. The same funds that are available to us to pay these charters flights are the funds I use to fly to Alaska.

I parenthetically say, Mr. President, when I came here, a Senator was allowed two trips a year. One to come down and go back and another to go home. Today, many of us make 10, 15, 20 trips. One time, I made 35 trips home to my State of Alaska because there were so many problems and things we had to do. It was not for campaigning or an election year, it was to talk to people about problems they were facing.

I don't think this amendment is part of lobbying reform. I understand the need to find some way to deal with it. I, also, believe we should have some exception in the amendments that deals with the problems we face, where we cannot travel except by the use of private planes. I hope the Senator from California will take occasion to look at this amendment. I know that being a Californian, there are problems she faces, too, but not on the regular basis that we face, in terms of dealing with Alaska.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 16 be withdrawn. There has been confusion over the interpretation of that amendment. I will look at it and redraft it.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 9 which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the leaders, the floor managers, all those involved in this important debate for putting this front and center of our business in the new Congress. It is very appropriate we do so.

I hope we all recognize, after the last few years, we need a very focused, sincere, determined effort to strengthen the law, strengthen enforcement, and rebuild the confidence of the American people in our institutions.

These two amendments that I bring to the Senate I hope will do that. They are part of a package I have introduced, along with three amendments I introduced and talked about briefly yesterday.

Let me get to this first amendment today. It is a very simple, straightforward idea to address what, unfortunately, is a very real issue and a very real cause for concern by the American people. That is the practice, in some cases, of spouses of Members of the House and Senate being registered lobbyists, making large amounts of money in that profession, lobbying at the same time they are a spouse of a Member of the House or a Member of the Senate. My amendment is very straightforward and says we will not allow that.

The underlying bill addresses that in a very narrow way, to say that spouses in that situation can't directly lobby their own spouse or that Members' office. That is great, but clearly a person in that situation--a Senate spouse, a House spouse--has enormous entre to other Members, to other offices. My amendment is broader and says we are not going to allow that. Spouses of sitting Members of the House and Senate cannot lobby.

Unfortunately, I wish history was such that Members could argue this is a solution looking for a problem. That is not the case. This happens. It has happened. It has clearly been abused. There have been instances that have been reported that have caused great legitimate alarm and concern by the American people of this being abused. This has come to light in the last several years. Spouses making large amounts of money, bringing that income to the family bank account--obviously, the Member of Congress is part of it, participates in it--from lobbying.

There is a situation with two fundamental problems. One is a lobbyist spouse clearly having extraordinary access to other Members and their offices. That is one real problem. The second real problem is maybe even more significant. That is the opportunity for significant moneyed interests, special interests, whatever you want to call it, to be able to write a check, a big check, in the form of a salary that goes directly into a Member's family bank account through the spouse. That is a practice that has been used and abused in the recent past. Again, this is not a solution looking for a problem.

We, also, point out there is an exception in my amendment. I debated whether to include this exception. I can make an argument that we should not even allow this exception, but to bend over backwards, to be fair, to answer some concerns of other Members, I included the exception. It says, if this lobbyist spouse was a lobbyist more than a year before the Member was first elected to the Congress, they can continue with that activity. In other words, someone who legitimately built up a career well before that marriage was ever seriously contemplated, can continue. Again, I can make an argument of no exceptions, but in the interest of bending over backward to meet some legitimate questions, I included that exception.

I hope all Members of the Senate, Republican and Democrat, will carefully look at this amendment and support it. This has been and is a practice. It has been used and abused in the past. It has clearly caused serious concerns among the American people. It has been in press reports and other disclosures in the last couple of years.

To say we are doing wholesale lobbying and ethics reform, and, oh, by the way, we are not going to touch this, we are going to forget about this, would make a folly of the whole exercise. I encourage all Members of the Senate to support this concept.

Let's make a clear-cut rule. Let's get rid of this clear conflict of interest to potential abuses, unusual access to Members, as well as the possibility of special interests basically being able to write a big check directly into a Member's family bank account.

Amendment No. 10 to Amendment No. 3

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside that amendment and call up my second amendment of the day, amendment No. 10.

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

Mr. President, I think this amendment also addresses an important issue in this ethics and lobbying reform debate; that is, the significance of the penalties involved for serious violations.

This amendment is very straightforward. It says that registered lobbyists who fail to comply with the Lobbying Disclosure Act--and after that is called to their attention, and then they fail to remedy the situation, fail to fix it, fail to follow other aspects of the law--the maximum penalty can be $200,000. Current law, right now, is $50,000. I simply think that is too low for the most serious violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, considering that in virtually all of these cases the lobbyist is given notice and allowed to correct the situation before we ever get to this sort of very serious penalty.

The underlying bill on the floor, as I understand it, will propose to increase the current law penalty from $50,000 to $100,000. I think that is obviously movement in the right direction but not far enough. My amendment would propose changing current law from a maximum penalty of $50,000 to $200,000.

Again, let me emphasize a couple things. I think there is the wide and correct perception by the American people that in a lot of these cases you have a law, you have a violation, and it just ends up being a slap on the wrist--the cost of doing business to a lobbyist who is making millions. I think that is true in many cases. That is a real defect in the law. We need to correct that.

Secondly, we are talking about a maximum penalty--up to $200,000. It does not mean it has to be $200,000. And we are talking about a situation where a violation is called to a person's attention and that person fails to comply with the law within 60 days, fails to right the wrong by complying with other provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

So given all of that, given all of those circumstances, I think a maximum penalty--maximum--of up to $200,000 is very legitimate and is a change that is really overdue.

Again, I implore all the Members of the Senate, Democrat and Republican, to take a good, hard look at this amendment. I think when they do, the vast majority will support it. I certainly look forward to that.

With that, Mr. President, I look forward to further debate on these amendments and certainly votes on these amendments, and I have received commitments for that.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 7.

I thank the Chair. Under the previous order, I will talk about this amendment for 5 minutes and then the floor managers will do the same.

Mr. President, I explained this yesterday. It is a very straightforward amendment. It simply increases penalties--I think appropriately--for willful and knowing misrepresentations on financial disclosure reports.

As you know, many people in Government, including U.S. Senators, have to file financial disclosure statements. That is section 101 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1975. It is very basic information about not every detail of our finances, but the broad brush of an individual's finances. This applies to others, certainly, in the administration, executive branch, as well as some in the judicial branch.

Section 104 of that act is about the penalties. That says the Attorney General can file a civil suit against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies that sort of document or knowingly and willfully fails to report that information. But the maximum fine under that civil suit is $10,000. Mr. President, this can literally be a slap on the wrist in certain situations. This can literally encourage people to falsify documents or not report certain information completely or properly because, No. 1, that figure will never be noticed or caught; No. 2, worst case, if it is, it is only $10,000. It may be worth paying that and trying to get away with it versus disclosing certain information.

That is unacceptable. This amendment fixes that. It raises the maximum civil penalty from $10,000 to $50,000, and it allows--doesn't mandate--the Attorney General to bring criminal charges in certain situations, with a maximum penalty of up to 1 year imprisonment. Again, in certain situations, that would be appropriate and the current law in certain situations, I believe, will actually encourage folks to try to get away with noncompliance, nondisclosure.

Finally, I ask this simple question in support of the amendment: If that is the right approach for the average American citizen, why should it not be the right approach for U.S. Senators, House Members, and members of the executive branch? Why do I say that? Well, if an average American citizen knowingly and willfully falsifies tax documents, guess what. They are in a heap of trouble and they face much greater potential consequences than a civil fine of up to $10,000. They absolutely face potential criminal charges. So if it is right and appropriate for the average American citizen, certainly the same rule should bear on Members of the Senate, Members of the House, and members of the executive branch, no more or less. What is fair is fair. We need to be treated like the average American citizen.

With that, I yield back my time and look forward to wrapping up this debate.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I urge all Members to vote against the motion to table. I believe I am correct that it will be in the form of a motion to table.

I urge them to vote against the motion to table. I appreciate the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about this amendment. However, I do think this is not a solution looking for a problem. This is a real problem that we need to solve.

The problem is simply this: This has been abused in the past. There are clear and documented cases whereby Members, candidates especially, use their political position to add to the family income. If the case of a Member or a candidate hiring a family member on a campaign could truly be enforced, if we had a way consistently in all cases to make sure that the law was being followed that only bona fide work should be paid for at fair market value prices, that would be one thing. That is the law. You can do it, but it is only supposed to be done to compensate actual work at fair market value prices.

The fact is, there is no way to police that. There have been plenty of situations, unfortunately, in the past where this opportunity was used to allow a candidate to use his political position to increase the family income. This has come to light in the last several years. This has been an unfortunate practice. I think it is part of a whole series of abuses that Americans are just fed up with. They see Members of Congress, people in politics, using their political position to increase their income or increase their family's income. This is a situation which is wide open for that abuse.

Again, it would be one thing if present law were enforced. Present law says you can do it, yes, but it is only supposed to be for real work, bona fide services at a reasonable compensation level. It is crystal clear that that provision is not and cannot be policed. There is no real meaningful way to ensure that. So it is an opportunity which has been used by some folks who use their political position to add to their family income.

This goes to the heart of the concerns of many Americans. It goes to the heart of a lot of issues on the lobbying side. It goes to the heart of issues involving campaign finance.

I urge all Members of the Senate to solve this problem in the only way that is practical, which is to draw a red line, create a clear prohibition so that we avoid those abuses which have unfortunately happened in the past.

I urge Members of the Senate to vote against the motion to table.

I yield back my time.

I ask unanimous consent simply to be recognized for the time remaining of my 5 minutes so that I may also address my second amendment which will be voted on. I misunderstood. I thought the time allotments only applied to the amendment I addressed, not the other amendment. Therefore, I want to address the second amendment as well.

Mr. President, the second of my amendments that will be voted on through a motion to table is with regard to the clear loophole in campaign finance law about Indian tribes. We have talked about this and debated this. This has been widely recognized for quite some time. It is a loophole in the law that allows tribes to give to candidates directly, including gambling proceeds, without any necessity of forming a PAC and going through those rigorous requirements that corporations, labor unions, and other entities have to do. This is a loophole that has been widely recognized and needs to be closed.

Certainly no legitimate argument exists that this is beyond the present debate. Think about the single biggest scandal that got us to this debate, the Jack Abramoff scandal. Indian tribes and their unfettered access to money, including gambling revenues, was at the center of the single biggest scandal that brought us to this debate. There is no legitimate argument that the amendment is somehow extraneous to the debate. If this is going to be a meaningful exercise about real reform, really cleaning things up, getting serious, not protecting sacred cows, then let's get real about it.

One way we get real about it is closing this Indian tribe loophole which clearly exists and has no legitimate justification. I urge all Senators to vote against the motion to table because, again, this goes to the heart of the Abramoff matter. We need to properly regulate those campaign contributions in the same way as we do other entities, corporations, labor unions, and the like.

With that, I appreciate the deference in allowing me to speak to this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have under the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. President, I urge Senators to vote against this motion to table. Unfortunately, this opportunity to increase a Member's family income has been used and abused, and it tarnishes the entire body. It is one factor that has helped erode public confidence in the Congress.

If there was a way to truly police present law, I would say fine, but the fact is, there clearly is not and there is no way to know if services are being rendered and if a proper amount is being paid. So it is and will remain, if this amendment is tabled, a clear conduit of abuse of which some Members--I am not saying many or most, some Members--will take advantage. That will continue to hurt this institution and all of us who don't participate in that practice.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I want to engage the managers here. It is my understanding I will have time shortly to give a statement on Iraq. I don't want to interfere with the legislation on the floor, and I am asking whether this would be a good time for that statement to take about maybe 15, 20 minutes.

I see no objection.

Mr. President, I am concerned about the deteriorating situation in Iraq. We need to change course. Let me urge my colleagues to consider a few principles for where I believe we should go from here.

Like my colleagues, I have received an outpouring of letters, e- mails, telephone calls. Montanans are split in how Americans should proceed, but one thing is clear: They all want to see an end to it. They want to see our men and women come home.

On October 20, a man from Cutbank, MT wrote me to say:

Yesterday was a very emotional day for me. I currently have

a son serving in Iraq who does house-to-house raids and goes

out on extended missions. My other son, who just joined the

Army, informed me that he too will now be leaving for Iraq.

As native Americans, my sons will be honored when they return

home. We are proud of them. We are very proud of our native

Americans who serve as warriors, but I am deeply concerned

with what they face every day over there.

Amber, a military wife from Great Falls, MT writes:

I realize that my voice is a voice of millions that call

for your assistance. However, I couldn't sleep at night

knowing I didn't at least try to do what I think is right. My

husband along with many others here in Montana is in Iraq

right now, and just recently we lost a soldier from Billings.

Help us bring the troops home where they belong with their

families who miss them.

In September, Tom Gignoux, from Missoula, MT, a Marine Corps veteran with a Purple Heart wrote me to say this:

I no longer support the war in Iraq. I believe that

mismanagement of the occupation and reconstruction has made

the war unwinnable and is distracting us from the war on

terrorism.

Mr. President, I believe it is time for our combat troops to come home from Iraq. America entered into this war with motivations that were clearly honorable, but they were mistaken. As the 9/11 Commission found, there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And the theory that America could, through invading Iraq, establish democracy that would spread throughout the region has proven a cruel joke.

If we knew then what we know now, I would not have voted for the war. If we knew then what we know now, I believe the results of that vote would have been different. Indeed, I doubt that we would even be asked to take that vote.

The administration was not up front with us. They presented faulty intelligence and faulty information, especially about weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the quality of congressional decisionmaking was no better than the quality of the information upon which we relied.

Going into Iraq was a mistake. The premise was wrong. After September 11, 2001, we had international support to go after al-Qaida and to find Osama bin Laden. That is the mission we should be strongly pursuing-- more strongly. Our resources are incorrectly being exhausted in Iraq. I cannot go back and change that vote, but I can work in a new direction.

I first commend our troops. They are wonderful. They have shown such courage, such exemplary strength. They are terrific. They removed the tyrant Saddam Hussein. They addressed the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction. They have done their job well. We are all proud of them. Their service has been outstanding. No one can argue against their contribution to our national security, and their dedication to their missions goes unmatched.

I believe in giving our soldiers, sailors, and airmen the proper equipment and tools they need to stay safe and to succeed. A year ago, I spoke about our responsibility to get as much funding as possible for the troops. I have criticized spending on high-tech weapons systems at the expense of boots on the ground. I voted in favor of every Defense bill and war supplemental since the war began.

I heard of families hosting bake sales to buy body armor. I have tried to do everything I could to protect our troops. But it is no longer enough.

Now our brave troops stand in the crossfire of a civil war. We have lost more than 3,000 troops in the escalating conflict. Just this week, the Iraqi Health Ministry reported that more than 17,000 Iraqis died in the second half of 2006. That is more than three times as many who died in the first half of 2006. And now, America has spent more time fighting this war than we spent in World War II.

I understand and sympathize with the Americans who continue to support this war because they do not want their family and friends to have died in vain. I know what they feel. I struggled with that last summer when my nephew Phillip died in Iraq. On July 29, Marine Cpl Phillip Baucus, my brother John's son, was killed during combat operations in the Al Anbar province. He was just 28 years old. Phillip was a bright and dedicated young man. He was like a son to me. He had a loving wife and a bright future. His death was devastating.

I know what it is like to wait on the flight line at Dover Air Force Base. I know what it is like to weep over the body of a fallen soldier and family member. I know what it is like to escort Phillip back from Dover to Montana. I know what it is like to pray for a reason, and to become determined not to lose.

I am not the only Montanan who has grieved. We are not a large State, but 14 Montanans have so far lost their lives in Iraq, and we grieve for them all. In fact, we in Montana send more troops to Iraq on a per capita basis than any other State in the Nation. Those men and women who have lost their lives have served a noble purpose. They have taught us lessons in courage, and we honor that courage by speaking out. We honor that courage by admitting that what we are doing is not working, and we honor that courage by finding a new direction.

A change in strategy is not defeat. A change in strategy is a recognition that things are not working. Moving forward, I urge the President and the Congress to consider four principles. First, we must not escalate the conflict. Second, we must train Iraqis to stand up for themselves. Third, we must start bringing our troops home by the middle of this year. Fourth, we must engage Iraq's neighbors and the world community to find a more political solution.

Let me explain in greater detail. First, I do not support the escalation in the number of American troops. Throwing more troops at the problem--especially a modest number, up to 20,000--is not a solution. Escalating the war is not a solution. We must not launch a strategy which has no benchmarks for its success. How long and at what cost do we add troops to the conflict? It is a mistake.

The Iraq Study Group is a prestigious and well-respected group. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was a member. The study group said the current strategy in Iraq is not working. That is what this study says. But to this date, the President has not implemented any of the group's recommendations.

President Bush has stated numerous times that he listens to the commanders on the ground. American commanders on the ground have reported that al-Qaida has increasingly gained political influence among the Sunnis. General Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee:

I believe that more American forces prevent Iraqis from

doing more, from taking responsibility for their own future.

I urge the President to listen to what General Abizaid said and not just replace commanders who say things he does not want to hear.

Second, we should not have an open-ended commitment in Iraq. America must make that clear to the Iraqi Government. The war is now costing us $2 billion a week. That is $2 billion a week that is not being devoted to health care, veterans' benefits, or education.

There must be a more specific plan. The plan needs to outline how long our training efforts will continue, and the plan needs to show at what point the Iraqis will take over security of their own country.

Last weekend, Iraq's Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, reiterated the need and his commitment to getting the Iraqi security forces to stand up on their own two feet. America should support these efforts. In short, our forces should stand down so the Iraqi forces can stand up.

Third, with a new focus on political solutions, the United States should start phased redeployment of combat troops in roughly 6 months, with the goal of having combat forces out of Iraq as soon as possible. Our troops are stretched too thin to address emerging threats around the world. There is something called opportunity cost. It is a technical term. But we are so focused on Iraq that we are not paying attention to other trouble spots in the world as much as we should. We must not focus solely on Iraq in blindness to the rest of the world.

Our troops are serving their third and fourth tours in Iraq. Some deployments have been extended for 12 to 18 months. Some troops no longer have a year to spend at home between deployments. I have seen firsthand in Montana how the Guard and Reserves are deployed in record numbers. They have served honorably and with my great admiration. But we need them on U.S. soil for homeland defense missions. The Active- Duty troops must not be overextended. They need to be ready to deploy around the world.

Finally, America must engage Iraq's neighbors more than we have. The Iraq Study Group named a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a major potential contributor to the stability in Iraq. I strongly agree with that. That will take so much of the terrorists' energy out of their sails, frankly, if we could find a meaningful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Iraq Study Group said:

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle

East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict

and regional stability.

They continue:

There must be renewed and sustained commitment by the

United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all

fronts.

We have taken too many steps backward in that conflict. Our invasion of Iraq has simply stirred up things way too much. It has caused problems. America's presence has opened the doors to terrorism and sectarian violence.

We must reengage and work toward peace and diplomatic solutions. We must seek increased participation of other nations both in a political way forward and also in reconstruction work. We should redouble our efforts to reach out to that nation and to our allies who also have an intense interest in peace in that region and work together toward a responsible exit.

In March of 1919, the Emir of Iraq, Feisal ibn Hussein, wrote to Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. This is what he said:

We feel that Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having

suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger

than themselves, and by happy coincidence they have been able

to take the first step toward the mutual attainment of their

national ideals together. . . .Indeed, I think neither can be

a real success without the other. . . .I look forward . . .

to a future in which we will help you and you will help us,

so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may

once again take their places in the community of civilized

peoples in the world.

That is what the Emir of Iraq wrote in 1919.

America must renew its commitment to peace in the Middle East. We must work to regain the fleeting sense of optimism that can lead to political resolution. We must be positive. We must be the leaders that we Americans are. We must work to stop the spilling of blood in the land of Abraham.

I urge President Bush to listen to the Iraq Study Group. I urge him to listen to commanders such as General Abizaid. I urge him to listen to the American people. It is time for America to change its course. It is time for a new political effort. It is time to bring the troops home.

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

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, having recently returned from another visit to Iraq serving as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I come to the floor this afternoon to express my views on the most pressing issue facing our country today: our path to success in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group recently stated the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. When the current path isn't working, you have to be flexible. You have to shift. You have to make a change. And, clearly, in Iraq today we have to make a change. The President of the United States, on Friday, said the same thing.

In December I met with Iraqi political leaders, U.S. troops and their leaders, as well as our diplomats on the ground. Our conversations with this broad range of individuals helped me draw various conclusions that are key to evaluating the proposals currently being debated. In light of the President's upcoming announcement of his strategy for Iraq, I think it is important to share these conclusions.

It is easy to lose sight of the fact that we are in Iraq as part of a Global War on Terror. There is no question that Iraq has become the key battleground of this war. Failure cannot be an option in either the overall war on terror or in Iraq. As the President has correctly stated, this is the battle of this generation. With menacing regimes in Iran and Syria, we cannot dismiss the fact that a failed state in Iraq would lead to much more than chaos and collapse in that nation. It would destabilize a critical region of the world and, most alarmingly, would create a breeding ground for terrorists whose ambitions do not stop at Iraq's borders. Americans--all Americans--have a direct stake in winning this war.

We know the United States will be involved in the war on terror for the foreseeable future. The question is, How do we move forward in Iraq? How do we fight this war? And, where do we put our troops?

From my experience in Iraq, I know now, or at least I believe, that we are fighting it essentially on two fronts. The first is the war we intended to fight: a war against terrorists, primarily Sunni extremists and foreign jihadists linked to al-Qaida--foreign terrorists. The other war is a war between the Iraqis themselves: Shiite against Sunni, in a seemingly endless cycle of grisly violence. Our military must continue the battle against extremists and terrorists, but we have no business being caught in the crossfires of an Iraqi sectarian conflict.

The good news is we have had great success in fighting the war on terror, imposing crippling losses on the international jihadist network which today operates in Iraq. Indeed, during my visit in December with marines from Minnesota stationed in Anbar, they reported they were making great headway against the insurgency there. I am proud of their accomplishments, and I firmly believe these military victories directly enhance our security at home. But to secure the ground that these marines have cleared of insurgents in places such as Fallujah, they need Sunni police officers. They need Sunni members of the Iraqi Army. They need reconciliation between Sunni and Shia. So as we continue to fight the first war, the war against terrorists, we need also to address the second war, that of Iraqi against Iraqi.

The overall consensus I found in Iraq is that we will be unable to hold on to the ground we have gained on the first front without addressing the second front: Iraqi sectarian violence. This violence is spiraling rapidly and is undermining the success we have made against the terrorists. If the Iraqi security forces, both Army and police, are to someday soon take over the fighting of the insurgency from U.S. troops, it is clear that intergroup violence must be brought under control. The Iraqi security forces must include all Iraqis: Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, and others. To be certain, our efforts cannot succeed if sectarian hatred is not addressed at the highest level of the Iraqi Government immediately.

The only long-term solution for bringing stability to Iraq must be centered on national reconciliation. It is true that after decades of Sunni violence led by Saddam Hussein and his regime, the Shiites still have unaddressed grievances. But this does not call for, nor permit, neighborhood-by-neighborhood ethnic cleansing, nor a refusal to work together for the future of all Iraqis. Shiites may be able to win short-term victories through the use of violence, but in the long term they will not have a unified country if they continue to do so. Iraqi leaders should focus on reining in all sectarian groups under the umbrella of a national and inclusive political process. This is a solution that can only be led by the Iraqis themselves.

With no doubt, this sectarian violence was left to grow unchecked for far too long. Even so, it is not too late to get Iraq back to stable footing. But it will come from dialogue and political compromise enforced by a central government prepared to take on militias under the control of religious sects, clans, and even common criminals. We must get to the point where Iraqi citizens express their views through political channels instead of through violence. The Iraqis are the masters of their own destiny, and it is important that our strategy regard them as such.

Since my trip to Iraq in December, I have been calling for the Iraqi Government to establish a series of benchmarks that will diffuse the sectarian violence and stabilize the country politically and economically. These benchmarks would include an oil revenue-sharing agreement and economic assistance to areas that have been neglected in the past. The reality is not putting resources in Anbar Province because it is Sunni, and so as a result, what you get is a feeding of insurgency by the actions of a government that has not been prepared to address the issue of sectarian violence. We will be a better supporter of the Iraqi Government if we pressure them to create and adhere to these benchmarks rather than assuming that this fractured Government will take this on by themselves. I fear that up to this point the Iraqi leadership has not stepped up to the plate to make the difficult decisions that are necessary to pave the road for a political solution.

When I was in Iraq with Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, we met with the Iraqi National Security Adviser to Maliki, Dr. Rubaie, who contended that sectarian violence wasn't the main problem, but the problem was the foreign terrorists and was the Sunni insurgency. That is not the case. As a Senator responsible for looking after the best interests of my constituents and all Americans, I take seriously the responsibility of Iraqi political leaders to honor the sacrifices that are being made by American soldiers. I refuse to put more American lives on the line in Baghdad without being assured that the Iraqis themselves are willing to do what they need to do to end the violence of Iraqi against Iraqi. If Iraq is to fulfill its role as a sovereign and democratic state, it must start acting like one. It is for this reason that I oppose the proposal for a troop surge. I oppose the proposal for a troop surge in Baghdad where violence can only be defined as sectarian. A troop surge proposal basically ignores the conditions on the ground, both as I saw on my most recent trip and reports that I have been receiving regularly since my return. My consultations with both military and Iraqi political leaders confirms that an increase in troops in areas plagued by sectarian violence will not solve the problem of sectarian hatred. A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It will put more American soldiers in the crosshairs of sectarian violence. It will create more targets. I just don't believe that makes sense.

Again, I oppose a troop surge in Baghdad because I don't believe it is the path to victory or a strategy for victory in Iraq. I recognize there are those who think otherwise. The Iraqi

Study Group, in their report, said that they could, however, support a short-term deployment, a surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such standards would be effective.

I sat with the President with Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues. I know that he has weighed this heavily, and I know he has looked at this issue for a long time. Apparently, he has come to the conclusion that, in fact, a troop surge would be helpful. I believe his comments will contain--hopefully contain--discussions about benchmarks and contain a commitment to do those things to rebuild the economy and create jobs so that we get rid of some of the underlying causes and frustrations that feed the insurgency. But the bottom line is, again, at this point in time, it is sectarian violence that I believe is the major issue that we face and more troops in Baghdad is not going to solve that problem.

As one of the final conclusions to share of my experience in Iraq, I would also like to emphasize the significant role of Iran in fomenting instabilities. Across the board, my meetings with Iraqi officials revealed that the Iranians are driving instability in Iraq by all means at their disposal. We had a hearing today in the Foreign Relations Committee and one of the speakers, one of the experts said that it may be, and it is probably clear that, the Iranians have a stake in American failure in Iraq and its stability in the region, and they feed on that. Indeed, there are credible reports that Iran is currently supplying money and weapons to both its traditional Shiite allies and its historic Sunni rivals, all for the purposes of ensuring a daily death toll of Iraqi citizens. It is clear the Iranians have concluded that chaos in Iraq is in their direct interest. Iran's role thus far, not to mention their pursuit of nuclear weapons, makes it hard to believe that they might suddenly become a constructive partner in the stabilization of Iraq.

I want to point out that my commitment to success in Iraq has not changed, nor my willingness to consider options that would realistically contribute toward our goals there. In my trips to Iraq, I have gone with an open mind as to what next steps could be taken as we work with the Iraqis to stabilize their country. I have said all along that the stakes of our mission in Iraq are such that failure is simply not an option, and I will only support proposals that will steer the United States toward victory. Abandoning Iraq today would precipitate an even greater surge of ethnic cleansing. It would, as I indicated before, precipitate an episode of instability and chaos in the region that would be in no one's interest. But my most recent trip to Iraq also reaffirmed to me that it is the Iraqis who must play the biggest role in any strategy for success. Our investment must be tied to their willingness to make the tough choices needed to pave the way to stability and for them to act on them.

I represent Minnesota, but if I represented Missouri, I think I would simply say to Maliki: Show me. Show me your resolve. Show me your commitment. Show me that you can, in fact, do the things that have to be done to deal with the sectarian violence, and then we can talk about enhancing and increasing the American effort. I haven't seen it. I don't see it today, and as such, I am certainly not willing to put more U.S. troops at risk.

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