Youth Jobs Act of 2010

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the three amendments that have been spoken about--the McCain amendment, the Cornyn amendment, and the McCain-Kyl amendment. I will get into some detail in a few minutes about the opposition, but it relates to three points.

First, President Obama has a tough, smart, targeted $500 million package that will greatly increase resources at the border, and we need it. Crime has increased, as my friend from Arizona has said. We need it. So, No. 1, there is a very good plan in place.

No. 2, this is a huge amount of money--$2.5 billion--that my colleagues, who talk about fiscal moderation, are requesting, and much of it will not go to securing the border. It is sort of throwing an enormous amount of money at the problem that is not as carefully thought out, not as targeted, and not as effective, quite frankly, as President Obama's program.

No. 3, it takes the money out of the stimulus bill. Well, there is a border problem in Texas and Arizona that affects all of us, and we want to solve it. The President and we are working to do that. But we have a jobs problem in this country, too, and this is the worst kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The stimulus money will go to creating jobs. If we ask the people in, say, Michigan or Ohio or Rhode Island or New York what is the No. 1 issue? Jobs. This money is being taken away from job creation and used, as I say, in a not effective, overmagnified way. It is too much money to stop what is going on at the border.

So let me elaborate. First, as I mentioned, President Obama is sending a package to the Congress next week. It includes 1,200 National Guard, funding programs for DEA, ATF, FBI, and ICE that are proven to work. The three amendments offered by the Senators from Texas and Arizona are a grab bag of enormous spending. If all of the $2.5 billion they are proposing just to go to the border would double the amount, it wouldn't be well spent. The President's money is thoughtful and targeted and has been in the works for a while. Let me give some examples.

The amendment calls for $300 million for funding for any State or local enforcement agency so long as it is within 100 miles of the U.S.- Mexican border. Almost none of this money will be used for border enforcement. Border enforcement is needed at the actual border.

Second, the Cornyn amendment also calls for $100 million for construction of new land ports of entry. But the problem at our ports of entry is not lack of funding from the taxpayers, it is that we need an adequate fee system to make sure the users of those ports of entry pay for things rather than taking the money away from job creation in our States.

Third, the amendment Senator Kyl has offered as a second-degree amendment would spend about $200 million on a program known as Operation Streamline. In reality, this program requires taxpayers to foot the bill at the cost of more than $120 per day, per inmate, to house border crossers and give them three free meals a day, free health care, medicines, and surgeries for all manner of illnesses, et cetera.

Couldn't we better spend this $200 million and pass a comprehensive immigration reform program which is so much needed? By the way, it is my view that while we have to tighten up the border, people are coming for jobs. The only way we will stop the flow of illegal immigration into this country is to tell those who hire them they no longer can. The only way to do that is our Secure Social Security Card that Senator Graham and I have put forward so that papers can't be forged and illegal immigrants can't be hired. Comprehensive reform does that; these measures don't.

We have heard talk about needing to bolster the border for years. It clearly hasn't stopped the problem, as the Senator from Arizona admits. We need a comprehensive approach that will include border security but is not only border security. If my colleagues would join us in that approach, we could have a tough, fair-minded proposal that would do the job.

Let me make some other points against the amendments while I have more time. The McCain amendment seeks $250 million for 6,000 National Guard to be sent to the border. They can't use that number of National Guard so quickly. The 1,200 that President Obama has requested is right.

When President Bush sent 6,000 National Guard to the border in 2006, there were 10,000 Border Patrol agents in the entire force. That means a total of 16,000 after the Guard was deployed. Now, we already have more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents--double the number of Border Patrol agents. Those and the 1,200 National Guard will do the job. We cannot just throw money at this problem and take it away from job creation. We have to be focused and smart. The President does that.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and join us in supporting a smart program that will do the job and, furthermore, join us in supporting comprehensive immigration reform, which is the only real way to stop the flow of illegal immigration across the border.

Madam President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Madam President, I rise against the second-degree amendment by Senator Kyl. It would actually take $200 million that is not going to secure the border any. It will incarcerate illegal immigrants. It will pay for their food, their health care, their recreation time, their reading material, for long periods of time.

If we want to secure the border, which we do, we have to be smart about this. We cannot just keep doing the same thing again and again. Furthermore, it takes the money out of the stimulus, which is jobs. So we are doing something that is ineffective, we are doing something that has not worked in the past, and now we are taking away jobs from the other 48 States.

That does not make any sense. So I would urge that this amendment be defeated. I would urge we start doing what is needed and what is smart to stop the flow of illegal immigration. We all know what we have to do, and that is a comprehensive proposal. This will not work and takes money way from jobs in the other 48 States. I urge its defeat.

I raise a point of order on the pending amendment pursuant to section 403 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

Madam President, I rise to oppose this $2.2 billion spending amendment. It puts money in just about every program, needed or not. Then it takes that money out of the stimulus, the Recovery Act, taking it away from jobs. We must secure the border, absolutely. The President's plan is smart and focused. But for all of the voices on both sides of the aisle who have talked about jobs and all of the voices who have talked about fiscal moderation, to throw caution to the wind, to put $2.2 billion into programs whether they are needed or not makes no sense at all.

We must stop illegal immigration as it comes across the border. This will not do it. My colleagues know it, and I know it. This is what is called a symbolic amendment to show where one stands in many ways. It is $2.2 billion. We can find amendments that will do the job, that cost a lot less, and that will not take away the jobs we want to create and preserve.

This amendment, in my judgment, is the least responsible of the three to, again, take every program and say: More money, more money, more money, without a plan on how to spend it. It makes no sense. I urge its defeat.

Madam President, I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to section 403 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

Madam President, there are those in the Congress who like to just talk about the need to secure our borders. I have actually done something about securing the borders. In 2005, I authored an amendment with broad, bipartisan support, which initiated a comprehensive effort to secure our borders. Since I became chairman of the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee in 2007, I have continued that effort. As a result, there are more Border Patrol agents, more technology, more border infrastructure, more detention capacity, and more investigative capacity dedicated to securing our borders than ever before.

This investment has produced results. The numbers of aliens being deported, especially aliens convicted of crimes, has grown significantly. The era of catch and release has ended. The recession and increased enforcement has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of illegal aliens coming into this country. Violence on the United States side of the border is down.

There is more to be accomplished, particularly as drug violence in Mexico grows, but as a result of investments made over the last 5 years, the Department of Homeland Security has received significant assets to address this problem.

Deportations have greatly increased from 211,098 in 2003 to between 230,000 and 390,000 annually for the past 3 years. Homeland Security is on track to remove 400,000 aliens this year, including 150,000 convicted criminal aliens.

The Department of Homeland Security, DHS, has more ``boots on the ground'' at the border than ever before. Today, the Border Patrol is better staffed than at any time in its 85-year history, having nearly doubled the number of agents from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more than 20,000 today.

In 2006, DHS opened the first Border Enforcement Security Task Force, BEST, in Laredo, TX. BESTs are law enforcement task forces that combine Federal, State, local, and international personnel to tackle border crime. The BEST model has proven extremely effective not only at interdicting illegal activity but also at building criminal cases that lead to high-value prosecutions. There currently are 17 BESTs, including 3 in Arizona, 1 in Mexico City, and the President's fiscal year 2011 budget requests funds to open 3 more. Over the past year, DHS doubled the number of agents working on the BESTs in the southwest border region.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, Office of Investigations criminal arrests have increased from 14,077 in fiscal year 2002 to 32,512 in fiscal year 2009. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations criminal arrests--those apprehended at the ports of entry--have increased from 15,820 in fiscal year 2002 to 38,964 in fiscal year 2009.

This year, DHS will finish constructing nearly all of the 652 miles of border fencing along the southwest border the Border Patrol has determined is required. As of March 2010, all 298.5 miles of vehicle fencing have been completed, and only 5.7 miles of pedestrian fencing remain to be constructed. This comes on top of $260 million the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided for border security technology and improved tactical communications equipment.

According to the Border Patrol, the number of miles of the southwest border under effective control by the Border Patrol has increased from 241 miles in October 2005 to 742 in October 2009.

DHS Secretary Napolitano announced last month that DHS is redeploying $50 million of Recovery Act funding originally allocated for SBInet to other tested, commercially available security technology along the southwest Border, including mobile surveillance, thermal imaging devices, ultralight detection, backscatter units, mobile radios, cameras and laptops for pursuit vehicles, and remote video surveillance system enhancements.

The level of detention beds for illegal aliens funded by Congress has steadily increased over the past 5 years from only 18,500 beds in fiscal year 2005 to 33,400 beds today. Since fiscal year 2009, Congress has mandated that ICE maintain 33,400 detention beds. And the average length of stay has dropped from 40.4 days in fiscal year 2004 to 31.2 days in fiscal year 2009.

The number of illegal aliens detained has increased from 256,842 in fiscal year 2006 to 383,524 in fiscal year 2009. The total number of illegal aliens removed has nearly doubled since fiscal year 2003 from 211,098 to 405,662 in fiscal year 2009.

The number of fugitive operations teams has been increased to 104 this fiscal year from 51 in fiscal year 2007. On April 30, 2010, ICE announced it had apprehended 596 criminal aliens in a targeted operation in the southeastern

United States. On April 15, 2010, ICE arrested 47 individuals charged with operating shuttle bus services in southern Arizona which brought aliens who had recently entered the country illegally from border towns to Phoenix for further transport to the interior of the United States.

Since March 2009, Customs and Border Protection--CBP--and ICE have seized $85.7 million in illicit cash along the southwest border, an increase of 14 percent over the same period during the previous year. This includes more than $29.7 million in illicit cash seized heading southbound into Mexico--a 39-percent increase over the same period during the previous year.

During the same period, CPB and ICE together seized 1,425 illegal firearms, which represents a 29 percent rise over the same period in the previous year. At the same time, CBP and ICE seized 1.65 million kilograms of drugs along the southwest border, an overall increase of 15 percent.

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that in Arizona, the number of illegal immigrants in that State declined to 460,000 last year from a high of 550,000 and continues to drop.

Contrary to popular perception, suggestions of spillover violence from Mexico have been exaggerated. While violence and drug trafficking organization-related murders are up in Juarez, Mexico, El Paso, TX-- directly across the border--was ranked the second safest major city in the United States by CQ Press in November 2009. The assistant police chief of Nogales, AZ, recently stated, ``We have not, thank God, witnessed any spillover violence from Mexico. You can look at the crime stats. I think Nogales, Arizona, is one of the safest places to live in all of America.'' FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma, and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade. A May 2, 2010, article from www.azcentral.com actually was headlined ``Violence is not up on Arizona border despite Mexican drug war.'' The Border Patrol has reported that the March 2010 murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz is the only American murdered by a suspected illegal immigrant in at least a decade within the agency's Tucson sector, the busiest smuggling route among the Border Patrol's nine coverage regions along the U.S.-Mexican border.

There is still more to be accomplished. I am pleased that this week the President announced his intention to deploy up to 1,200 National Guardsmen on the southwest border. However, I oppose the amendments to add over $2 billion for border security, given that the amendments are offset with significant cuts in stimulus funding that will continue to create jobs in America. I will continue my efforts to further secure our borders.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, to introduce the Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2009.

This bill addresses a serious problem that is modern day slavery, pure and simple--human sex trafficking. You could almost call it a war, where all too often, children are the casualties.

The statistics on minors involved in sex trafficking are shocking. Experts estimate that over 100,000 children in the U.S. are at risk for prostitution. The average age of entry into prostitution is 12. The children at greatest risk of becoming involved in sex trafficking are what they call ``repeat runaways''--kids who have run away over and over again. They need help right away if they are going to avoid being caught by pimps. One third of run-away children are lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home and 75 percent of minors caught in this web of prostitution have a pimp.

This problem is on the rise because criminal gang members are increasingly turning to pimping. Gang members have discovered that they are less likely to get prosecuted for trafficking a person than trafficking drugs. While drugs can only be sold once, a pimp can sell a person over and over. It is just as lucrative. A pimp can make $200,000 a year on one trafficking victim.

This situation is horrifying and totally unacceptable. The bill I am introducing today will bring a smart strategy that will give some teeth to the efforts law enforcement across the country have made to combat sex trafficking. It will give them additional resources they need to lock up pimps and sex traffickers. It will also help victims break away from their abusers and get the treatment and services they need to take their lives back.

Let us be absolutely clear about this--the pimps who prey upon vulnerable young people are criminals, and they should be put behind bars. The young women, girls, and sometimes boys who are trafficked are not criminals--they are victims of crime. They don't need to be prosecuted. They need all the help they can get to escape the clutches of pimps.

Unfortunately, until now, the government has been a step behind. Right now, it is very difficult for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to build criminal cases and crack down on pimps. The Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act would change that.

Here is how it would work: The bill would establish a pilot project of 6 block grants in locations in different regions of the country with significant sex trafficking activity. The block grants would be awarded by the Department of Justice to State or local government applicants that have developed a workable, comprehensive plan to combat sex trafficking. The grants would require a comprehensive, multi- disciplinary approach to addressing trafficking problems. Applicants for the grants would have to demonstrate they can work together with local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and social service providers to achieve the goals the bill would set out for them.

Government agencies that get the grants would be required to create shelters where trafficking victims would be safe from their pimps, and where they could start getting treatment for the trauma they have suffered. The shelters would provide counseling, legal services, and mental and physical health services, including treatment for substance abuse, sexual abuse, and trauma-informed care. The shelters would also provide food, clothing, and other necessities, as well as education and training to help victims get their lives on track.

It is going to take this kind of comprehensive plan to finally turn the tables on pimps who, right now, just wait for their victims to be released from jail so they can put them back out on the streets to make money for them. Once those girls are out, they don't come back to testify against their pimps--they're just gone.

This bill fixes that problem by giving the young victims a safe haven. It is only by addressing the needs of these victims that law enforcement officers will be able to work with them to build criminal cases against their pimps. The block grants will also provide for specialized training for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to help them learn how to handle trafficking victims and build trafficking cases.

This bill would also strengthen reporting requirements for runaway or missing children, and authorize funding to the FBI to enhance the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, database, which is where missing child reports are filed. This would give law enforcement officers better information on the children at greatest risk of being lured in to sex trafficking by being able to show a tally of how many times a child has run away, and can flag them as ``repeat runaways'' who are at high risk of being lured into prostitution.

Sex trafficking is a complex issue that requires the comprehensive, wrap-around approach that this bill would deliver. As daunting as this problem is, there are bright examples of how to address the challenge, such as the achievements of Sergeant Byron Fassett of the Dallas Police Department. Just listening to Sergeant Fassett, who spoke at a recent congressional briefing that I hosted, is an education in how to do this right. The lessons he has learned in over 20 years of combating sex trafficking are a primer for how to get victims out of the clutches of pimps and build cases to put pimps away. Sergeant Fassett is not the only officer out there who's attacking this challenge the right way. In my home town of Portland, the officers on the human trafficking task force are doing excellent work. But right now, they simply don't have the resources to crack this problem. The Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act would deliver the training and resources they need.

I want to also thank the many individuals and organizations who attended the briefing and participated in efforts to craft this legislation. I particularly want to acknowledge the Polaris Project and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, for their instrumental roles in this effort.

I look forward to working with Senator Cornyn and other colleagues to move this important legislation forward. There are children out on the streets tonight who shouldn't have to wait for the help this bill can give. Let us end this appalling war on those kids. Let us give them the help they need by passing this piece of legislation with all the speed possible.

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

Madam President, I also wish to speak to the amendments that have been offered by Senator McCain, Senator Kyl, myself, and Senator Hutchison with regard to border security.

One thing we cannot lose sight of is that the failure of the Federal Government to deal seriously with border security leaves all of the border States basically on their own. We have heard a number of people who criticized the State of Arizona for dealing with this issue the best they can. But what are they supposed to do if the Federal Government does not step up and deal with its responsibility, which is a Federal responsibility?

We talked about the violence, particularly relating to the cartels, with 23,000 Mexicans killed since 2006 in these drug wars. Right across from El Paso, 1,000 people have been killed in Ciudad Juarez, which is literally across the river, like Virginia is from Washington, DC. We have seen the spillover effect in American citizens being killed and living in fear on this side of the border.

We cannot forget there is also an important war on terror issue here as well, something we have not talked about very much but something I was reminded of yesterday when the Department of Homeland Security issued an alert to police and sheriff's deputies in Houston asking them to keep their eyes open for a Somali man believed to be in Mexico preparing to make a crossing into Texas. The Department of Homeland Security in this announcement believes this man has a tie to an organization affiliated with al-Qaida. I say to my colleagues, maybe this individual is not coming to Houston to stay in Houston. Maybe he is coming to the State of one of my colleagues or their town where they live. It demonstrates again why this porous border represents a national security problem for the entire country.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a list of other-than-Mexican illegal immigrants.

Madam President, I have in my hand a list of the countries from which individuals who have been detained at the border have originated. In 2009, 2 people from Afghanistan were apprehended on the southern border; 10 from Iran, a state sponsor of international terrorism, as we know; 10 have come from Iraq; 19 from Pakistan; 12 from Somalia; and 3 from Yemen. Out of a total of 45,000 other-than- Mexican citizen immigrants apprehended at the border, these are just some examples of why our porous border represents a national security threat in the global war on terror.

There is also another reminder in the news recently where two F-16s had been dispatched to intercept an ultralight aircraft flying across the border into Arizona. Some 200 ultralight aircraft have been detected in 2009 alone. These ultralight aircraft do not require

a license to fly. They typically fly so low to avoid any radar detection. It is estimated by the Department of Homeland Security that some 600 of them have flown into the United States, primarily transporting huge loads of illegal drugs, of course, being sold on America's streets to our children, among others.

From these two facts--the fact that we have other than Mexican citizens who simply want to come to work using the porous border, both Mexico's porous southern border and our southern porous border, and to come into the United States for unknown purposes, perhaps to do us harm--it is obvious our current border security measures are inadequate to deal with this new phenomenon of ultralight aircraft transporting drugs into the United States and perhaps transporting back to Mexico the bulk cash that is generated from these drug sales, further funding illegal drug activity and the cartels that are causing so much mayhem on our southern border.

The problem we have with our broken immigration system is that it is simply not perceived as credible by the American people. Until we deal with this broken border, we are not going to be able to deal with other aspects of our broken immigration system, and I would support an effort to do that. But it seems to be that our colleagues on the other side too often seem to view border security as leverage or a bargaining chip they are not willing to give up unless they get something else for it. But it is, in fact, the Federal Government's responsibility to deal with this situation, as the President himself has acknowledged in his recent announcement to send 1,200 additional National Guard to the border. I will tell you that it is a welcome gesture, but it is no more than that--a gesture. These 1,200 National Guard on a 2,000-mile border--you can imagine how many gaps in the effort of border security will still be left. That is why I support the McCain amendment and the Kyl amendment to provide additional National Guard on a temporary basis.

Our National Guard is already severely stressed because of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, our all-volunteer military forces. What we need to do is provide a permanent solution, not a temporary solution, and that means more Border Patrol, more ATF, DEA----

All the boots on the ground that we need to make our border security efforts credible.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Madam President, yesterday the Department of Homeland Security told local law enforcement to keep their eyes peeled for a Somali man believed to be in Mexico for a period in order to make an illegal crossing into Texas. DHS believes this man has ties to an organization affiliated with al-Qaida. Maybe he will not come to Houston. Maybe he will go to some other city in this great country of ours. We simply don't know whether this individual or the 45,000 other- than-Mexican citizens who have immigrated illegally across our border represent a national security threat.

If we look at the countries they come from--Pakistan, Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, Somalia, Yemen--it could mean something very bad will happen as a result of our dereliction of duty to secure the border. It is unfair to criticize States for trying to protect themselves when the Federal Government will not do the job instead as it should.

I urge colleagues to support this fully paid-for amendment to help beef up border security. The point of order that will be raised is simply an effort to deny the fact that we are in a state of emergency and we need to act now to secure the border.

Madam President, we need to improve our border security, and I have worked to do just that by supporting efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels and to increase the number of Federal agents and Homeland Security personnel on the ground in the Southwest border region. Unfortunately, the three amendments the Senate considered today that were intended to enhance border security would have redirected funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It doesn't make sense to cut funding from a program CBO says boosted employment by as many as 2.8 million jobs in the first quarter of 2010, while raising GDP somewhere between 1.7 and 4.2 percent. We face serious fiscal challenges, and we need to cut wasteful spending, but the American people should not have to choose between saving jobs and protecting our border.

Madam President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Durbin, Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Sanders, Udall of New Mexico, and Harkin, and would require the President to provide a flexible, nonbinding timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. It does not set a specific date for the withdrawal of such troops. It does not require the President to actually redeploy troops. It does not place any restrictions on funding.

The President has already indicated his surge strategy in Afghanistan is time limited and that he will begin redeploying troops in July 2011. All we are asking in this amendment is that the President provide further details on how long this redeployment is expected to take.

Our brave servicemembers and the American taxpayers deserve to know what is being asked of them as they risk their lives and spend their money to continue this war.

My amendment is not about whether we support the President or the troops. All of us support the troops, and I hope we all wish the President success in Afghanistan. Nor is it about whether we agree with the President's strategy. I, for one, happen to have serious doubts about the administration's approach. But in light of our deficit and domestic needs and in light of rising casualty rates in Afghanistan and in light of the growing al-Qaida threat around the world, an expensive, troop-intensive, nation-building campaign doesn't add up for me. We should be focusing on Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other terrorist safe havens.

Frankly, I am disappointed we are about to pass a bill providing tens of billions of dollars to keep this war going with so little public debate about whether this approach even makes any sense. But no matter how we feel about the President or his approach in Afghanistan, I hope we can agree on the need for an exit strategy as we approach the 9-year anniversary of a war that is showing no signs of winding down. That is all my amendment would require--a nonbinding plan to bring this war eventually to a close.

We have lost 1,000 servicemembers in this war. We have spent $300 billion. I hope my colleagues will agree that the American people deserve an answer to the question: How much longer?

I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

I thank the Chair. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Michigan, but I feel very strongly that my amendment has to be properly characterized. This is not a specific timetable. It merely asks the President to give us a vision of a timetable of when he intends for this to be over.

The Senator from Michigan tries to reassure us that the President has announced a start date for us to get out of Afghanistan. Well, that doesn't work because how do we think the people of that area of the world will be reassured if we are going to only start to withdraw the troops in 2011? You take one troop out, that starts it. That is not a vision of when we intend to complete it.

The Senator suggests that somehow this sends the wrong message in the region. Well, actually, the wrong message is that we intend to be there forever. We don't intend to be there forever. But you know what. After 9 years, people start wondering--9 years; 9 years with no vision of when we might depart. In fact, I think the absolute worst message in the region is an open-ended commitment. The worst thing we can do is not give some sense to the people of that region and to the American people and to our troops that there is some end to this thing. All we ask for in this amendment is some vision from the President about when he thinks we might complete this task.

So when this amendment is properly characterized, it is actually a way to help us make sure the Taliban and al-Qaida and others do not win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people because they need to be reassured that we intend to make sure their country comes back to them and that it will not be occupied indefinitely.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds to respond to the Senator from Michigan.

I thank the Chair. I thought I had a little more.

Madam President, the Senator is trying to read the amendment in a way that is simply not accurate.

The amendment simply asks the President to provide his vision of a

timetable by which he would intend to withdraw the troops. It is entirely nonbinding. Any suggestion that this is binding in any way on the President or the U.S. Government is completely false and a mischaracterization of the amendment. It is not binding. In fact, it allows the President specifically to identify variables that would cause him on his own to change the timetable. So how anyone can say this is a binding timetable in any way, shape, or form is beyond me.

It is merely a request that the President give us his vision of when he might withdraw from Afghanistan. It is the only fair way to characterize this amendment.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.