Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate the Sierra Oaks Senior and Community Center for 20 years of dedicated service to the seniors in the communities of Tollhouse, Auberry, Shaver Lake, and Prather. Since opening their doors in 1986, this regional asset has made significant contributions to improving the lives of northeastern Fresno County's senior community and their families.

For the past two decades, the Sierra Oaks Senior and Community Center has provided a myriad of important social services and activities to help seniors live more independent and active lives. Whether it is providing free health assessments, offering classes in quilting, painting, and computers, or holding a stroke survivors support group, the center upholds the principle that seniors should be afforded the opportunity to live independently and thrive in their own communities. The dedicated staff and outstanding group of senior volunteers work diligently to ensure that those who are in need of their support are treated with the care and respect that they deserve. Through the center, many seniors have acquired invaluable tools to help them lead more active and enjoyable lives.

I congratulate the Sierra Oaks Senior and Community Center on its 20th anniversary and wish its staff, volunteers, and sponsors even greater success as they continue to provide important services to the seniors of Tollhouse, Auberry, Shaver Lake, and Prather. You have not only been a pillar of support for your clients, but you have performed a great service for the communities that you serve.

Mr. President, today I recognize the University of Redlands. This academic year, the university celebrates its 100 anniversary.

The University of Redlands was originally chartered in 1907 on a tract of donated land by individuals associated with the American Baptist Church. It admitted its first student in September 1909 and in 1910 proudly celebrated its first graduating class of three students. Throughout the next century, the University of Redlands has become a preeminent institution and today celebrates a century of contribution and service through education.

With today's growth in population, there is an ever-present strain on our Nation's university systems and the ability of students to receive meaningful direct contact with university faculty. The University of Redlands has successfully maintained personal instruction throughout the years and continues today to maintain a student to faculty ratio of 12 to 1. There are currently over 200 full-time faculty and a core of 200 adjunct faculty who are selected for their expertise and experience in their fields. Throughout these past 100 years, the university has also maintained a high level of faculty quality, with 88 percent of the full-time faculty holding a Ph.D. or terminal degree.

The University of Redlands has successfully met the ever-changing needs of a diverse population. Over one-third of the university's students are members of historically underrepresented groups, and the student body represents all corners of the world and draws students from across the United States. Most recently, the entering class of 2006 saw 40 percent of its students from outside of the State of California.

The university's success contributes significantly to the growth of the local community. Its faculty and staff make the University of Redlands one of the largest employers in the region, helping to maintain a strong local economy. In the past decade, the university

has invested over $140 million in its physical plant, employing many local craftsmen and laborers. In addition to investing in the local economy and construction, the university invests significantly in its students, with over $28 million of university funds budgeted for need- based, merit-based or talent-based awards. This contribution has produced an alumni which has made a lasting impact on America, with 45,000 alumni currently contributing to the betterment of society throughout the world.

The University of Redlands' commitment to community outreach is seen most noticeably in its students' service and contributions. Over 80,000 community service hours are provided annually by University of Redlands' students to help meet local, national and international needs. Meeting these needs has been a fundamental tenet in the university's educational philosophy for many years, as it was one of the first educational institutions in the Nation to require community service as a condition for graduation.

On its centennial, the University of Redlands looks back on a proud history of growth and contribution in inland California and the world. I applaud the service and dedication of the faculty, staff, and students of the University of Redlands as they celebrate 100 years of improving lives and education.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize inland southern California attorney Brian Unitt as he receives the San Bernardino County Bar Association's Florentino Garza Fortitude Award. Mr. Unitt is a community leader and an example to us all.

The Florentino Garza Award is given to exceptional individuals who overcome significant obstacles and achieve success in the legal field. This prestigious award takes its name from inland attorney Florentino Garza, who overcame a childhood as an orphan and a life as a migrant farmworker to graduate from college and law school and eventually gain prominence in the legal profession.

Today I recognize the exceptional work of Brian Unitt, who has overcome blindness to achieve outstanding success in the legal field. Brian Unitt was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa at a young age. This debilitating condition begins with a degeneration of cells in the eye's retina, producing reduced vision and eventual loss of sight.

Brian Unitt received his law degree from the University of California, Davis, in 1983. Throughout his undergraduate years and in law school, he took class notes in Braille using a slate and stylus, and he typed examinations using an electric typewriter. He passed the California State bar examination on his first attempt and began practicing law shortly thereafter in Riverside, CA. In 1996, Brian Unitt became partner at that same firm, now known as Holstein, Taylor, Unitt and Law.

As an attorney, Mr. Unitt practices personal injury law, focusing particularly on appellate work. His experience and dedication over the years has allowed him to be a tremendous advocate for injured individuals, assisting others who have suffered a physical loss. Other attorneys who have had the opportunity to know or work with Brian Unitt have described him as ``brilliant in his legal work,'' ``a true scholar of the law,'' ``a superb lawyer,'' ``a wonderful, wonderful, brilliant plaintiff's attorney,'' and ``civil, professional, and ethical.''

Today I salute the life and service of Brian Unitt. His life story is a true portrayal of a man who overcame tremendous physical adversity to assist others in their battle with physical adversity. I applaud Brian Unitt and look forward to what I hope will be many years of service to the people of inland California. Please join me in honoring a true hero.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4995 and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I am very disappointed. We have looked through this bill and we have seen an amendment that we believe gives Senators the opening to offer this. It was coming from the other side. It was the Burns amendment that dealt with an issue close to this. I will not argue that.

What I say to my colleagues today is this: We are very fortunate we have a homeland defense bill before the Senate. We are very fortunate Senators Collins and Murray work in a bipartisan way on a homeland security bill that deals with port security. We are further blessed that Senators have the guts to step up and offer amendments dealing with rail security and transit security. They were agreed to, thereby broadening the scope of this bill.

However, it is amazing to me that after we have observed and marked the fifth anniversary of September 11 we would turn away from a simple amendment that I am offering, which costs as much money as it takes for the war in Iraq in 5 hours--5 hours of the war in Iraq. We could take that amount of funding and make sure that on every passenger plane in this country that carries cargo there would be at least one blast- resistant cargo container.

Everyone lauded the 9/11 Commission. Let's see what they said about this.

The TSA should require that every passenger aircraft

carrying cargo must deploy at least one hardened container to

carry any suspect cargo.

That is the 9/11 Commission Report. That is dated July 22, 2004.

The other side is objecting on some thin parliamentary threat and hiding behind it. It is outrageous. I cannot wait to tell the people of this country that for 5 hours of the cost of the war in Iraq, every airplane that has cargo

would have at least one blast-resistant container so that if there is a bomb on that plane it will be contained. because only the suspect cargo would go into that particular container.

I do not understand what we are doing here. We have a good bill. We can make this bill better. The first thing I heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, oh, they did not want the airlines to have to pay the $15,000 per container--$15,000. It is a $150 million aircraft, but they did not want the airlines to pay $15,000. Fine. I said we will make sure the Transportation Security Agency gets those containers to the airlines. That is fine. That is fair.

The Homeland Security Department now has a test program. We know these things work. So let all of America hear it today. For all the talk about the 9/11 Commission Report and how great it was and how fair it was and how bipartisan it was, how good it was, how clear it was, this very simple recommendation that every passenger aircraft carrying cargo must deploy at least one hardened container to carry any suspect cargo, this Republican Senate would not allow a vote.

You are going to hear all kinds of words about why it is not germane, and we are doing something else somewhere else. Do you know what? This is simple. This would do the trick. This is not costly. It would not even rate an asterisk in the Federal Government.

So I am very sad to see that we cannot vote on this amendment. But I will be back another day with it. You can be sure of that.

I thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I may respond, this is not my idea, I say to my good friend from Alaska, with whom I have had many good debates. This is a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. We all know there are sniffing dogs going through the airports. I voted to make sure that happened. But we also know we are talking about a layered defense.

I want to know what the Senator from Alaska would say if this cargo blew up on a plane. I do not think he would be down here saying: Well, I supported making sure we had canine teams. I will tell you right now, either we are going to do homeland defense or we are not.

The Senator is right, this is a port security bill. But we have broadened it. I know he was not thrilled about that, and neither was the other manager. They wanted to keep it to port security. Why? Why not keep our people safe, not only when you are dealing with port security but with air security and rail security and transit security?

So this idea I have laid out here is not my idea. It is directly from the 9/11 Commission Report. And let the Record show that all kinds of talk about, oh, how safe we are because we have the canine teams, that is just part of a layered defense. The 9/11 Commission knows this, understands this.

It would have been very simple to have a vote on this amendment and add this very simple, inexpensive addition to this bill. But I guess it goes back to what Mr. Chertoff said the other day. I guess it just is not a priority. He said: Oh, we are going to go bankrupt protecting the people. I am basically paraphrasing what he said. Bin Laden wants us to go broke, he said. No. Bin Laden wants to kill us. Yes, he wants to kill us.

So why are we walking away from a 9/11 Commission recommendation that costs as much as 5 hours of the war in Iraq? The Record will show what happened here today.

Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank Senator Brownback for raising this issue. We are in a do-or-die moment. We have been there before. I am reading that certain experts are saying in 2 weeks there could be another Rwanda.

I am very glad the Senator is speaking out. I was very glad this Senate did act, as we know, on a measure last week, actually voting to send $20 million to the African nations to carry on, as my friend points out. If they do not do it, there is a void. What will fill the void will be disease, rapes, killings and, I hate to say it, continued genocide.

I am glad the Senator raised this. The hours are running short. We did vote. It is important we use our bully pulpit in whatever way we can. I personally will be going to the United Nations on Monday literally to knock on doors. I am setting up some appointments. We have to do everything we can to prevent this worsening situation from getting to the point where it is unsalvageable.

I thank the Senator for his efforts.

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart, to pay tribute to a remarkable woman and patriot, Ann Richards.

There are so many words that I could use to describe Ann. She was vibrant, fiery, quick-witted, fearless, but for me the word that I think captures her best is genuine.

With Ann, what you saw was what you got. She had an authenticity that is rare in life, and even rarer in politics.

Even with all of her charisma and charm bubbling over, Ann would be the first to tell you that her life was not perfect and that she had made many mistakes over the years. But it was her embrace of those imperfections, and the wisdom to see that she could learn from her mistakes, that made her such a successful leader. People could relate to her.

When she won the Governor's office in 1990, Ann decided she really wanted to shake things up in Texas. So she made it her mission to appoint more minorities to State boards and commissions than any Governor before her.

According to the Houston Chronicle, about 44 percent of her appointees were female; 20 percent Hispanic; and 14 percent Black. That is in comparison to her two predecessors, who had given more than 77 percent of their appointments to White men.

So not only did Ann blaze a trail by being the first woman elected Governor of Texas in her own right, but she opened the doors of the State house to those who otherwise would have been in the back of the line.

Why? Because she understood that you can't just talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk. She knew that change was a good thing, even if it made people squirm in their boots.

There are a lot of people talking today about what a tremendous loss this is for Texas. I heard our President, George W. Bush say that, ``Ann loved Texas. And Texans loved her.'' But I have to take that one step further and say, Ann loved America, and Americans loved Ann. She barreled her way into our hearts, and for that we have been made all the richer.

I would like to offer my sincere condolences to Ann's children: Cecile, Daniel, Clark and Ellen, her eight grandchildren, and all those who knew and loved her. She will be sorely missed, but I am sure, always remembered.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her good work. I thank Senator Collins for her work on port security. I am proud to say that in the Commerce Committee, in a bipartisan way, we have worked over and over again to make this country safer. I was part of that

under the leadership of Senator McCain at the time, and first Senator Hollings and now Senator Stevens.

I want to show you a little bit of history about what has happened in the Republican Congress every time we have voted out one of these good bills because you can say what you want about partisan politics, but the fact is, almost every single time we reported one of these bills out of our committee, it simply died and went nowhere. I want to talk about that history because, of course, Senator Collins is right that protecting Americans is our job. It has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican.

Here is what happened. In the 107th Congress, we passed the Ship, Seafarer, and Container Security Act; no action by the full Senate. In the 108th Congress, we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004. It passed the Senate on September 21, 2004, and was not even considered in the House of Representatives. In the 109th Congress, we passed the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005. Commerce passed it on November 17, 2005; no action by the full Senate.

There you have it. Do you wonder why the 9/11 Commission has given this Congress and this administration failing grades? You can talk about bipartisanship. We reported these bills out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, but the leadership never bothered. So when I heard that the last days of this session were going to be about homeland defense, I said thank God for that, thank goodness for that. Whether it is an election driving it or anything else, I could not care less. Let's get it done. This Congress and this administration have received failing grades from the 9/11 Commission.

I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record, which is a final report on 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Mr. President, here are some of the things on which we received bad grades: We are not providing adequate radio spectrum for first responders. We are not establishing a unified incident command system. We are not allocating homeland security funds based on risk. We are not protecting the critical infrastructure. We don't have a private sector that is prepared. We don't have a national strategy for transportation security. We are not prescreening passengers like we should be. We don't have screening checkpoints detecting explosives. We are still not screening the cargo that goes into passenger planes, even though they are taking away our lip gloss. I don't care about giving up my lip gloss, believe me. I would give up my lip gloss and everything else, but how about protecting the cargo that goes underneath that passenger plane? How about making sure it is safe, making sure it won't explode?

I have an amendment that I will offer to this bill--unless the majority shuts me down--to say that until we are screening all of the cargo, let's make sure there is a blast-resistant container on these aircrafts. That is a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that has not been followed. So when you have a suspect piece of cargo and you are not sure about it, put it into the blast-resistant cargo container. We pushed this in the Commerce Committee. TSA tested it and we know it works. But it is not happening.

I could go on, page after page of this document, where this Congress and this administration have failed. I say they have been soft on homeland defense. Why? I say two reasons: They cannot afford it because they are spending our money in Iraq instead of protecting us from the terrorists at home, instead of going after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The President says over and over again that it is one

and the same. Do you know what? The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee was right out there and said Saddam Hussein--the tyrant though he is, and he deserves whatever fate awaits him--had not one thing to do with al-Qaida. As a matter of fact, he was threatened by them because he had a secular government. He was fearful of them, and rumors were that he wanted some of them assassinated.

The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran. It is a recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden. It is busting the budget. It is causing the debt to explode, not to mention the deaths of close to 3,000 of our service men and women, and 20,000 have been severely injured. The money going there is about $10 billion a month. We could protect every single American aircraft today from the threat of shoulder-fired missiles with the cost of Iraq in 1 month.

Then there is the other priority of this administration--tax breaks for billionaires. That is costing trillions. Look at every other President in the history of our country; they didn't do that in a time of war. So you have the war in Iraq, and the only strategy we have from this President is that we are going to be there ``as long as I am the President.'' Well, that is not a strategy; that is a recipe for more death, more destruction. That is clear.

There are many ways that we could begin reducing the cost over there--the cost to our troops. We can say to the Iraqi people that our people have fought and died for you; now take the reins of your own government and protect yourselves. If you cannot figure out how to protect neighbor from neighbor, you have a problem. Nobody did it for us. Everybody always says compare what happened in Iraq to the American Revolution. I don't get the comparison, but if we go with that for a minute, it is true that other countries helped us in that battle-- France, for example--but at the end of the day, we had to take over the security on the ground and make our new country a success. So we cannot force democracy and force people to love each other at the point of a gun. It is their business.

We have spent our treasure and are spending our treasure to the point where we cannot afford a comprehensive bill. You heard Senator Collins say, ``I hope you will vote against this broad bill.'' Why? We have been condemned by the 9/11 Commission for not doing enough in a broad way. This bill just does port security. Thank goodness we have amendments to add rail and transit. It is moving toward the Reid bill. Let this go on because the more we debate and the more we offer amendments, the more this bill looks like the Democratic alternative. It has taken a big step in that direction.

We know what happened in Madrid. We saw what happened in London. We know our infrastructure is at risk. But 5 years after 9/11, we get failing grades. It is a sad moment.

I thank my colleague, Senator Collins, and I thank my colleague, Senator Murray, two fantastic women who fought hard to get a port security bill to the floor. But let's welcome this as an opportunity to protect our people, not just focus narrowly on one problem.

I hate to say it, we have an array of problems. We have 41 problems and 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan Commission we have not listened to, and that is what the Reid bill does. It is very important.

I thank my colleagues for going as far as they have gone, but I hope we will go even further and change this truth that this Congress has been soft on homeland defense. We can change that, and I welcome the fact that we will be debating security from now until we get out of here because if ever there were a place we have neglected, it is homeland security.

I am very happy to be part of this debate. I look forward to supporting the Reid amendment and all the other amendments that will make our country safer. We can scare people. We can make speeches and frighten them. That is not our job. Our job is to protect them, not to scare them. We haven't done that, and we have an opportunity to do that between now and the time we get out of here and go home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from New York. I have listened carefully to the reasons the other side is objecting. At this stage, it sounds as if they are objecting. I hope they will accept this amendment.

Yes.

Mr. President, I am glad that I said what I did because maybe we have a chance to see this amendment get a favorable response in the Senate. It is true that this is broader than a port security bill, but so was Senator McCain's amendment and Senator Shelby's amendment. We are broadening this bill because I believe this is our last opportunity to address the issue of homeland defense.

This is a great opportunity to look back at what we have done right and what we have done wrong. And one of the things that was wrong was when Christie Todd Whitman, then head of the Environmental Protection Agency, came before my committee, the Environment Committee, and said the air was safe. She said the air was safe. People were down there at that site. The Senators from New York, Senator Clinton and Senator Schumer, know best how people are suffering, but I can tell you, in California, when we had fierce fires and we had horrible problems that befell our first responders, I wrote a bill. At that time, we could not get a bill through that said that these first responders, these bravest of the brave, deserve to have health care. Many of them were working part time and didn't have health benefits. Many of them lost their jobs and lost their health benefits. That is what is happening to those who worked at the World Trade Center site.

Senator Collins makes some good points about jurisdiction, but I don't think the families who are seeing their loved ones wheeze and cough--and one I just read about died literally holding the hand of his 4-year-old--care that this bill before us is about the Department of Homeland Security but the amendment deals with the first responders through another agency. That is why politicians get such bad names sometimes, because we come up with the craziest reasons for saying we can't support something. I am encouraged that Senator Collins said not necessarily, that she may, in fact, support this bill.

Words are cheap. We can say anything we want; it is free. But if you mean what you say, that the first responders are heroes, if you mean what you say when you say they should be lauded, remembered, their families protected, and all the rest, then do something about it.

I am so pleased that the Senator from New York has given this Senate a chance to say thank you and to say we are sorry because some of the people were told the air was fine when it wasn't.

I hope we will stand up and be counted. As I said earlier today, I am so glad we have the subject of homeland defense before this Senate. It comes in the form of a port security bill that Senators Collins and Murray worked on and on which many members of the Commerce Committee and other committees have also worked.

This is a good bill, but we can't leave here thinking that because we did a port security bill, we have addressed the issue of homeland security and all the ramifications that followed from 9/11. We are making this bill better. We are making it more like the Reid amendment. We are going after rail security. We are going after transit security. And now with the Clinton amendment, we have a chance to help those who deserve to be helped--the heroes of 9/11.

We were just reminded--we saw the scenes, we saw their selflessness, and this is a chance for everyone who spoke about them to cast a ``yea'' vote for them. That is an opportunity we should not miss today.

Again, my thanks go to the Senator from New York and my colleagues for allowing debate on this very important amendment.

I yield the floor, and 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 that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4913 and ask unanimous consent to send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, my amendment simply requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the procedures and guidelines necessary to protect U.S. military and civilian personnel in the event of a further increase in sectarian violence in Iraq.

Right off the top, I thank Senator Stevens and his staff and Senator Inouye and his staff. They really helped me in getting this amendment accepted. It means a lot to me because I worry deeply about this situation.

The reason I worry is, as we look at this war, we just have not seen plans. We have not seen that we have been ready for the contingencies we face. We never seem to plan for the worst-case scenario. Frankly, I think we need to do that in this case because we have not been right in predicting what would happen. We have seen, over time, that we have not had enough body armor, we have not had enough up-armored HMMWVs or countermeasures against roadside bombs.

Frankly, the American people are losing confidence that we are prepared to protect our troops in the case of a full-scale sectarian conflict.

There was a quote in the paper recently from the commander of day-to- day operations in Iraq. This is the quote:

Quite frankly, in 33 years in the United States Army, I

never trained to stop a sectarian fight.

Let me repeat that. This is from the commander on the ground in Iraq:

Quite frankly, in 33 years in the United States Army, I

never trained to stop a sectarian fight.

Now, for 6 months I have been asking Secretary Rumsfeld for a plan for our troops in the event there is a full-blown civil war in Iraq. And I have not received any kind of answer on it. After I sent my first letter to the Secretary asking for such a plan, I got a letter back from Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman. And he said:

Recent acts of violence intended to spark civil war have

failed.

That is the answer to my letter. When I asked: What is your plan in case civil war breaks out, he said: Well, there isn't a civil war. Obviously, that is not good enough.

My second letter to Secretary Rumsfeld was answered by Deputy Secretary Gordon England. He told me:

Iraq's enemies are intent on provoking widespread

intercommunal conflict but they are not succeeding.

So, again, a lot of reassurances but no plan.

So, once again, I did not receive any type of answer that gave me any solace that there is some planning to protect our troops and our civilian personnel if things get worse over there.

Now, we know the number of monthly incidents of sectarian violence increased from 5 per month in 2003 to 250 per month in 2006. Let me say that again. Monthly incidents of sectarian violence increased from 5 per month in 2003 to 250 per month in 2006.

Well, why do we need a plan now? I think the facts speak for themselves. The Pentagon's latest report that we received on conditions in Iraq, which was dated August 2006, said:

Concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian

population and among some defense analysts has increased in

recent months.

And this is what they said:

Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq.

So if the Pentagon is telling us conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, the least we can expect from our Pentagon leadership is for them to provide some kind of contingency plan to protect our troops and civilian workers we have over there.

July saw the highest level of weekly attacks since military operations in Iraq began. Since last spring, the number of daily casualties, both military and civilian, reached nearly 120 per day, up from approximately 80 per day.

According to the United Nations--and I believe this is also quoted in this report, so this is the Pentagon quoting the United Nations--an estimated 22,977 families--or 137,862 individuals--have been displaced in Iraq due to sectarian strife since the February 22, 2006, Samarra Mosque bombing.

So for those people who put their head in the sand and say, this sectarian strife, it is going to go away, the people really do not want it, the facts belie that. I would say to my colleagues, think of one of your towns. And 137,862 would be one of your very large towns. If everyone in that town left that town, that is how many people have been displaced in Iraq due to sectarian strife.

General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, acknowledged to one of our committees there is a possibility of the situation in Iraq evolving into civil war. And he did not anticipate such a situation a year ago.

So when I heard about that, I sent a third letter--a third letter--to Secretary Rumsfeld asking: What is the plan in case of civil war? That letter remains unanswered.

Now, there is no reason the Secretary of Defense cannot provide the relevant committees in the House and the Senate a plan in case of civil war. My amendment will allow for this plan to be submitted in a classified form. I think that is very important because we certainly do not want that published. But we want to know that it exists and that there is a plan to protect our troops and civilians. Congress has the responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch. Congress failed to ensure that the administration had a plan to win the peace in Iraq. We all know that. I saw Senator Biden just briefly on the Senate floor, and he was one of those voices, along with Senator Lugar-- bipartisan--way early asking: Where is the plan? Where is the plan? Where is the plan? We never had it.

Now the President says: We will be in Iraq. As long as I am President, we will stay in Iraq.

That is not a plan. That is an admission of no plan, no exit strategy. So at least let us have a plan, a contingency plan, that if the sectarian violence escalates, we know that our people will be protected.

I again thank Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and their staffs because I have to say without their help--this was a bit contentious, but we worked on it until we got it so that it could be accepted on both sides. I am very grateful.

At this time, I yield the floor and ask, at the appropriate time, we have a voice vote on this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize San Bernardino Valley College. This academic year, the campus celebrates its 80th anniversary.

San Bernardino Valley College was founded in 1926, when 140 students met at San Bernardino or Colton High Schools for classes. Later that year, construction began in the city of San Bernardino on a campus that would come to educate 700,000 students and play a central role in the growth of Inland southern California.

San Bernardino Valley College has educated generations of the region's future leaders and workforce. Over the years, San Bernardino Valley College has anticipated and planned for the changes that took place in California and our Nation. During World War II, the campus played an instrumental role in assisting with the war effort. In the years following the war, a number of celebrities visited the campus, and in 1947 the campus hosted the Bob Hope show that featured Desi Arnaz, his orchestra, and others. In 1950, the campus played a central role in the race for U.S. Senate, hosting senatorial candidates Richard Nixon and Helen Gahagan Douglas.

San Bernardino Valley College also has worked to meet the ever- changing needs of a diverse population. The civil rights era brought forth increased cultural awareness, and the campus responded by hosting diversity programs. Today the campus has an enrollment of over 12,000 students, three quarters of which are non-White students. The campus is recognized as a Hispanic Serving Institution by the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, HACU, and continues to receive title V funding for its pursuit of ethnic diversity.

In the past 80 years, technology has also impacted education. Faculty and staff have worked to help San Bernardino Valley College grow and adapt to this ever-growing need. College classes and degree programs are now offered not only on campus but at alternative community sites and on television and the Internet. The campus has also responded to today's need for quality science education and important student services.

San Bernardino Valley College has produced influential leaders in California and abroad, with prestigious alumni emerging each year. Dr. Charles Young attended Valley College before and after serving in the Korean war and went on to become the youngest chancellor of a University of California campus at age 36, taking charge of UCLA from 1968 until 1997, completing the longest tenure of any University of California chancellor. Judith Valles, former mayor of the city of San Bernardino, attended Valley College and served as both faculty and staff on campus. Graduating in 1966, Dr. Yolanda Moses went on to serve as the president of the City College of New York and was named the 74th president of the American Anthropological Association. And graduating as a business administration major in 1959, Jack Brown went on to become the president and CEO of Stater Bros. Markets, one of the Nation's largest supermarket chains.

Today San Bernardino Valley College can look back on a proud history of growth and change in the San Bernardino Valley and California. I applaud the service and dedication of the faculty, staff, and students of San Bernardino Valley College as they celebrate 80 years of improving lives and education to the people of the Inland Empire and southern California.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4895

We have no objection on our side.

Mr. President, I am going to be the last speaker. Senator Dorgan will not be using his time, so I am asking that I have 4 minutes of his time, since he has given me that.

Thank you. That will give me a total of 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I think it is a very sad day that the Republicans are not going to allow a vote on this Democratic resolution calling for a changed course in Iraq. And their reason--I sat here and listened--is that we are only doing this because it is an election year. Well, folks, I do not know how to break this to you, but every 2 years is an election year. Are we supposed to stop working in an election year? Are we supposed to stop talking about the issues that are on the minds of the American people because they may be difficult or they may be controversial or they may have consequences for us? Are we supposed to stop doing the people's business in an election year?

I do not know about my Republican friends, but I know Californians expect me to work every year--election year or not--every day, every week, every month. And I say to Senator McCain, elections do have consequences. He said elections have consequences. Yes. And all of us were elected, too. Is he forgetting that? Does he think the only election that matters is the election of a President? I think our Founders would be very shocked. Our job is to provide oversight. Our job is to, in fact, advise and consent on many nominations, including the top levels of this administration. So I rise in strong support of this very important amendment Senator Reid has carefully put together.

This amendment does three critically important things.

First, it is about this Congress conducting its constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight over the executive branch. It is our job, given to us by the Founders. It is our job not to be a rubberstamp Congress, not to be a compliant Congress, not to be a roll- over-and-play-dead Congress, but to challenge, to question, to push; and if things are not going well for our country--be it wages for our workers or be it education for our children or be it deficits as far as the eye can see and debt as far as the eye can see or the war in Iraq-- we need to speak out. And that is what this carefully crafted amendment does.

Second, the amendment is about helping to chart a new path forward in Iraq and clearly states that we need a new direction. That is important. There are those on the other side who said this is all about Donald Rumsfeld. It is not all about Donald Rumsfeld. It talks about starting over, starting anew, getting a new strategy in place for success in Iraq.

Third, it is about calling for a new civilian leadership. As you know, in this

particular version, we do not even mention Donald Rumsfeld's name. We are basically saying it is time to change direction. Things are dangerously heading down the wrong path in Iraq.

Let's hear what the latest Pentagon report said. My friends are quoting the Pentagon, as well they should. Let's hear what the Pentagon itself is saying:

Concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian

population and among some defense analysts has increased in

recent months. Conditions that could lead to civil war exist

in Iraq.

They pointed out that the average number of weekly attacks--against coalition forces, Iraqi security forces, the civilian population, and infrastructure--increased by 15 percent since last spring. The number of weekly attacks has increased from approximately 640 to nearly 800. July saw the highest level of weekly attacks since military operations began.

In California, we have bases that are sending our troops out for their fourth tour of duty--their fourth tour of duty. So we are supposed to sit back and be compliant because it is an election year? Because it is an election year? Just talk to the parents and the families who are losing their family members, who are losing their sons and daughters, who are losing their moms and dads, who are seeing them come back with post-traumatic stress disorder, severe brain injury. Talk to them about it. They could care less if it is an election year. They want us to change course and bring their kids home. The fact is, we could do it if the Iraqis wanted democracy and wanted freedom as much as we wanted it for them. You show me one country that survives that cannot take care of its own security.

Sectarian violence is what is going on over there. As a result of our flawed policy, we are shorting the war on terror. We are not protecting our ports. The money is going to Iraq. It is being sucked out of the Treasury, going onto the backs of our grandchildren, to the tune of over $300 billion. And where is the money for port security? Where is the money to protect our nuclear powerplants? Where is the money to protect our infrastructure? Where is the money to protect our aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles, when we know that at least two dozen terrorist organizations have those missiles and the FBI has warned us over and over that we need to do something about it? Oh, they have to slow-walk it because they do not have the money--except for tax cuts to billionaires. They have the money for that.

So the bottom line is, this flawed strategy is shorting the war on terror. Secretary Rumsfeld how wrong could he be? He said he doubted this war would even last even 6 months. But he cannot admit a mistake. The fact is, when we went into Iraq without a plan, we turned away from the war on terror. Every single Senator voted for the war on terror-- every single Senator.

I remember writing a speech, coming to this floor, and giving strong support to this President to go get Osama bin Laden, to go break the backs of terrorists, to go break the backs of al-Qaida to do it--and I would give him everything he needed. The whole world was with us. Go back to those days. Everyone was with us. But, oh, no, he had this thing, he was going to go into Iraq, even though his own State Department showed there was not one al-Qaida cell in Iraq. There were more al-Qaida cells in America than in Iraq. Took the money, took the energy, took the military, spread them thin, thought this war would be over in a nanosecond. And we have been misled. We have been misled.

So this is a very sensible resolution. Let me just read you the operative language:

Our troops deserve and the American people expect the Bush

Administration to provide competent civilian leadership and a

true strategy for success in Iraq.

President Bush needs to change course in Iraq to provide a

strategy for success. One indication of a change, of course,

would be to replace the current Secretary of Defense.

Mr. President, this resolution is written with respect to the President. It does not demean anybody. I believe it is very carefully drawn, and I think it speaks for the American people. If you look at the polls today, they are begging us--begging us--to change course. And I will tell you, it has not been easy for the American people to make their feelings known because they have changed. In the beginning, they were all for this. But they have seen what has happened. We cannot close our eyes to what is happening. And then when the Secretary of Defense looks at those of us in America--a vast majority who oppose this war--and says we do not understand history and we are appeasers, that has gone just too far.

I say to the Secretary and to this President: Get with the current times.

I even heard Secretary Rice talk about how this was somehow akin to the people who did not want to fight the Civil War. Talk about drawing up analogies that do not make any sense, there is another one.

Let's change course now. And let's start by approving this resolution. At the minimum, I say to my friends on the Republican side, let us vote on this resolution. It is our job to speak out. It is our job to do oversight. And let the votes fall where they may. But the American people deserve this vote. I thank my leader for putting this resolution together.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating the Center for Independent Living-- Fresno for 30 years of dedicated service empowering people with disabilities in Fresno, Kings, Madera, and Merced counties. Since opening their doors in 1976, this organization has made significant contributions to the lives of the Central Valley's disabled community and their family members.

For the past three decades, the Center for Independent Living--Fresno has been a respected leader in advocating for people with disabilities to live independent lives. They strongly uphold the principle that everyone should be afforded the opportunity to thrive and live independently in their own communities. The dedicated staff of the Center of Independent Living--Fresno work tirelessly to ensure that those who are in need of their support are treated with the respect and dignity that all people deserve. Through the center, thousands of people have learned invaluable tools to help them become self-advocates and lead productive lives.

I congratulate the Center for Independent Living--Fresno on its 30th anniversary and wish its staff and supporters even greater success as they continue to provide important services to people with disabilities. You are not only a tremendous asset for your clients, but you perform a great service for the Central Valley community.

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

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I will be happy to do so.

Mr. President, I rise today, as we debate the Defense Appropriations bill, to talk about the leadership of the Secretary of Defense and to relay to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle what I heard, as I was out and about in California, about his comments and the need, in my opinion, to change direction at the Department of Defense.

During this break, I was home in California working. There is a lot of anxiety in the land. Today, a new poll came out and showed a huge percentage of the American people--a huge percentage--angry, actually angry about what is happening in this country today. If you probe and find out, there are many issues. They are angry about the economy, which they are part of, where they see corporate profits way up but wages stagnant or falling--wages that cannot even keep up with inflation. They are angry at deficits. They are angry at debt. They are angry at good jobs going overseas. They are angry at the oil companies. They are angry at this Congress for doing nothing about that, not even supporting antigouging legislation. But the one thing they are angry and upset about more than any other is the war in Iraq.

So I think it is time that the Senate go on record and state very clearly that we are not satisfied with the way things are going. We are angry as well. We are upset as well. So over the recess, when Secretary Rumsfeld made his latest speech, which turned into an attack on the American people who oppose this war--61 percent of the people; he called them appeasers--I just said enough is enough, and I announced that I was preparing a resolution asking the President for new leadership at the Pentagon.

I know today Secretary Rumsfeld is having elective surgery on his shoulder. I want him to know this is not about his personality, it is about his policies. I wish him well today. But I do think it is time for new leadership at the Department of Defense.

Last week, Secretary Rumsfeld compared critics of the Bush administration's failed policies in Iraq to those who wanted to appease fascism and Nazism in the run up to World War II. On this rampage, he said that those people who oppose this administration's war in Iraq failed to learn the lessons of history.

I have served in the Congress since 1983. I was sworn into the House that year, and in 1992 was sworn into the Senate. So it has been a long time. I have served with four Presidents, Republicans and Democrats. I have yet to see a situation where a President of the United States, in the middle of a horrific situation where we are losing our beautiful young men and women every day, where they are coming home with post- traumatic stress disorder, with severe brain injuries--and I am very pleased that Senators Durbin and Allen have gotten together so we have a bipartisan amendment to help our soldiers as they come home dealing with these brain injuries--but I have never seen a President of any party offer no hope, no exit, no way out.

The best this President can say is: As long as I am President, we are going to be in Iraq. Is that a policy? Is that a plan? Is that a strategy? Is that hope? It isn't.

We hear the Secretary of Defense essentially give no hope either. His answer is to lash out at those of us who want to give some hope, who want to find a way out of this. But he went too far. He went too far because he attacked the American people. That is what he did. I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld, who thinks that those of us who believe this war is not going well and that we need an exit strategy are wrong, is failing to learn the lessons of history as he melds together the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

He says we don't understand history. I say to him: I voted to go to war against the terrorists. Every single Senator, Democrat and Republican,

voted to go after the people who attacked us, voted to go after the terrorists.

Let me remind the Secretary that according to a publication of this administration's own Department of State, there was not at that time one al-Qaida cell in Iraq, when there were many here in America. So don't blend this. It isn't going to work anymore. The people are too smart for this. It was al-Qaida who struck the United States on September 11, 2001--not Iraq--a country that didn't have a single al- Qaida cell. It had a brutal dictator worthy of the worst possible fate but not one al-Qaida cell, by this administration's own reports that I have made public time and time again. The American people get it. Today, 61 percent of the American people, nearly two-thirds of all Americans, oppose the war in Iraq. The American people are right. They understand the difference. They understand that the President and the Secretary of Defense, saying over and over: Iraq, war on terror, same thing, doesn't make it true.

When President Bush was asked directly a few weeks ago on August 21, he said: Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. But then I am assuming everyone gets together and says: Well, the only way we can try to win over the American people and get them on the side of this war is to tell them over and over again that the Iraq war is about getting the terrorists. While Osama bin Laden is on the loose, while the Taliban are gaining strength in Afghanistan, while we took our eye off that prize, while we lost the support of the world, we went into Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld is wrong when he says we don't understand this.

Osama bin Laden remains at large. America is bogged down in a war that becomes increasingly costly in dollars. My last memory is that it is costing $8 billion a month. Eight billion dollars a month, while we can't get $1 billion to take care of 1 million kids who have no place to go after school. That is just one comparison. While we are told we can't afford interoperable communications for our police, $8 billion a month is being spent in Iraq. And the treasure of our young people, each and every day--today I heard right now, another four--today, another four.

Now, here is the situation: We have to hold people accountable. When I face the electorate, I am held accountable. Everything I ever did that people didn't like, believe me, I hear about it. There are 30- second commercials about it and people get to look at it and they hold me accountable. Secretary Rumsfeld should be held accountable. Time and time again he has been wrong about Iraq, and time and time again he has responded to his own mistakes by playing politics and attacking the American people and their patriotism if they oppose his ill-advised decisions and now calling them appeasers. Appeasers, the new ``word du jour.''

It was Secretary Rumsfeld who failed to heed the warnings of military planners and experts that the overthrow of the Iraqi regime would be a prolonged and costly undertaking. In fact, he failed to heed even his own advice. I would like to share Secretary Rumsfeld's own words with you to illustrate this point. This is what Secretary Rumsfeld said his guidelines would be:

U.S. leadership must be brutally honest with itself, the

Congress, the public, and coalition partners. We must not

make the effort sound even marginally easier or less costly

than it could become. Preserving U.S. credibility requires

that we promise less, or no more, than we are sure we can

deliver. It is a great deal easier to get into something than

it is to get out of it.

Now, this is the text of a memorandum: ``Guidelines to be considered when committing forces,'' written by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in March 2001. So this is 2 years before Iraq. ``It is a great deal easier,'' he said, ``to get into something than it is to get out of it.''

But he didn't follow his own guidelines. He never even had a plan to get out of it.

So I remember very clearly his other quote. He said:

This war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six

months.

That was February of 2003.

And then he said in February of 2003:

There is no question but that American forces would be

welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq.

Now, if he said this and no more--I would say you have to hold someone responsible who has done all of this: set out guidelines and then turns around and doesn't pay attention to his own guidelines; predicts the war would, at tops, last 6 months, he doubted it; and that we would be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq. He ought to tell that to a mother I just met with whose military son was training the Iraqi military when one of the Iraqi military killed him in cold blood. Tell that--tell that to the military moms that I meet with.

It was Secretary Rumsfeld who said on March 30, 2003:

We know where they are, the weapons of mass destruction.

They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east,

west, south and north somewhat.

I remember sitting across from him, just a few feet, looking right into his eyes after we had started looking for the weapons of mass destruction, and he still held to all that: Oh, I know. You turn left at the fountain. It was that kind of a response. We know exactly where they are. Well, they had relied on people who were phonies. Their intelligence was wrong. But his judgment was to listen to those folks who were known to be exaggerators.

It was Secretary Rumsfeld who said on April 11, 2003, in the wake of widespread looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein when they were looting the museums, there was no law, there was no order. We had no plan. Our military did everything that was asked of them and they did it perfectly. There was no plan. And this is what he said in light of this widespread looting:

Stuff happens, and it's untidy and freedom's untidy, and

free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and

do bad things.

What a message. We now know--and we knew then as we watched it--that this looting set the stage for the climate of fear and lawlessness that persists to this day in Iraq. No plan. Oh, we were going to be there 6 months tops. Our troops were going to be loved. Oh, yeah, and if they just did a little looting, this is nothing.

It was Secretary Rumsfeld who sent brave young American men and women into combat without sufficient body armor, telling the young soldier who had the guts to ask him a question about this, he said:

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the

Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

What kind of comment is that? Why would he not say:

Young man, you had the guts to ask that question, and I am

going to make sure that we do everything we have to do to

make you as safe as you can be.

He needs to go.

It was Secretary Rumsfeld who sat back, without doing anything, in the face of widespread violence, the rise of sectarian militias, and the rapid growth of the insurgency. We went and asked questions of him time and time again. It was the same thing, always: Everything is going great. There are a couple of bad apples, a couple of bad apples.

It was Secretary Rumsfeld who presided over the Pentagon during the Abu Ghraib Prison abuse scandal which diminished U.S. standing in the world and caused irreparable harm to the image of the U.S. military. I remember looking at a document that the Secretary had approved of, where he said, these are the things that he thinks we should be able to do to the prisoners, and it was pretty shocking. But what has happened to this country is we have never been held in lower esteem, ever, than we are today.

This face, Secretary Rumsfeld's face, and this history, Secretary Rumsfeld's history, is dogging this country. I hope the President would see this, and we know he is extremely loyal, but it is time to be loyal to the troops now. It is time to be loyal to the families now. It is time to be loyal to the American people now who are very angry about what they see. It is time for him to go and get a fresh face in there. There are a number of people--and I wouldn't even consider putting any names out because it is not appropriate for me to do that. But there are many men and women in this country who could take on this task and bring a freshness to the job, a new perspective, someone who isn't tied down to past misstatements, past mistakes, and now this attack that he unleashed, this tirade on the American people.

It is time for new leadership, new direction, and new vision. We can do better. We have to do better. And I have to say in this conversation that there have been many on the other side of the aisle, both sitting in the Senate and also running for the Senate, who have also shared a critique of this particular Secretary of Defense. There is one in particular on the other side of the aisle who expressed no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld. A number of retired generals who served our country with honor and distinction have called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation over his mishandling of the Iraq war, including GEN Anthony Zinni, GEN Wesley Clark, LTG Gregory Newbold, who actually was part of the team that laid out the invasion plan for Iraq and who appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee and clearly offered a better way a year, a year-and-a-half ago, a better way out of this war. MG John Batiste, MG Charles Swannack, Jr., MG John Riggs, and MG Paul Eaton. We remember what happened. As soon as these generals had the courage to go out and say something, they were slapped down hard by this administration, essentially saying they had no right to express themselves. Well, quite the contrary. Quite the contrary.

I heard my leader, Harry Reid, say something very interesting one day. He quoted Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican President, who said something like this. I am paraphrasing, but I am using very similar words. He said: In a time of war, if you don't agree with the commander in chief and you say nothing, you are guilty of treason. That is a Republican President. How much have they changed? Now if you try to say anything, they slap you down. These generals deserve our thanks for having the courage to come forward, having the courage to say we need new leadership at the Pentagon.

MG Paul Eaton, who was responsible for training Iraqi security forces from 2003 to 2004--and, by the way, that is a hard job. I saw it being done when I was in Iraq last. MG Paul Eaton wrote in the New York Times on March 19, 2006, that Secretary Rumsfeld, ``has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally, and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.''

This is not easy for former generals, to say these things. What is important is that we hear them. Not that we say you have no right to speak. This is America. They have the obligation to speak, and each of us has the obligation to speak. No one in this country should be afraid of saying what is on his or her mind. If we get to that point, we are in deep trouble.

Talk about the lessons of history--we have our men and women in uniform fighting to give the Iraqis a chance at freedom. They are doing every single thing they can do. They have accomplished every single mission. We can go back to the missions they have completed. Those missions changed constantly.

First it was find the weapons of mass instruction. Well, they found they were not there. Then we said get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they captured him and he will meet his fate. Then they said there is some trouble here, let's show we are tough, so they killed his sons, and then the administration chose to put those pictures on television, thinking that would send a message: Don't mess with us.

Then they said we have to have an election. Our troops were magnificent. They set the stage for the election. Then they said we have to train their troops, and they trained their troops. Then they said they need another election, and they did it again. They did an extraordinary job.

But they cannot want freedom and democracy more than the Iraqis want it. Name one country that could be a country but has to rely on a foreign power to run the country and to provide the security. You can't find a country that is surviving in that situation. You cannot.

We just saw, in Lebanon, Hezbollah, a terrorist group, acting like a state within a state. That is unacceptable. The world is coming to Lebanon's rescue. Hopefully it will work and they will stop attacking Israeli soldiers and sending their rockets into Israel and they will leave the Lebanese alone and the Lebanese will protect their security. We cannot do the job of security for the people of Iraq if they are not interested in doing it.

Let me say, when I was over there, there is an attitude there that we will just stay forever, that they never have to do this. There is an attitude over there like that. I don't mind being Uncle Sam, but I sure don't want to be Uncle Sucker. This isn't right. This isn't fair. This isn't just, to send our people back and back and back, to second tours of duty, third tours of duty, to do a job the Iraqis must do for themselves.

This sectarian violence is the problem. The Bush administration itself, while they try to make this a war on terror, says and teaches us that it is a small percent of the violence that is coming from the terrorists. The vast majority is sectarian violence. That is why the American people are seeing through this. What they are learning is that in fact this operation in Iraq is shorting the war on terror.

I spoke before about Afghanistan. We went in there with the vote of every single Senator, to get the terrorists. We had the world in our hands. Then we made a detour, turned around, and now Afghanistan is having trouble. That should have been the model we used. That would have sent the message. We would have gotten bin Laden. We would have ended the Taliban. Now they are all creeping back in, as is the drug trading. This adventure in Iraq has weakened the war on terror. When Secretary Rumsfeld refuses to see that clearly and tells us it is all one, he is confusing the public purposely because he sees, politically, the people are catching on.

How many more troops do we have to lose? Madam President, 2,652 troops have lost their lives in Iraq and nearly 20,000 have been wounded. The cost of this war will soon reach $318.5 billion. We don't have enough money to insure our children for health care. We don't have enough money to protect our ports. We don't have enough money for interoperable communications. We don't have enough money to protect our nuclear powerplants and our railroads. And while we are taking away lip gel from women on planes, they are still not checking the cargo that goes inside the planes. We can't afford it--oh, no. But we can afford this and tax cuts to millionaires--again and again and again.

I guess we can afford these deficits and we can afford the debt that is reaching such a major proportion that it is not only our children but our grandchildren, and maybe theirs, who will have to pay off this debt. And we were on our way to a debt-free America when this administration took over.

We have shortchanged the war in Afghanistan, which is the central front of the war on terror. According to the New York Times, suicide bombings have doubled. The roadside bombs attacks, modeled after those carried out in Iraq, are up 30 percent. The United Nations announced Saturday that this year's opium crop in Afghanistan has reached the highest levels ever recorded, yielding extraordinary profits that we know fall back into the hands of the very people we are trying to defeat.

Tragically, attacks against schools are on the rise, and attacks against women. In January, armed men in the Zabul province of Afghanistan beheaded a high school headmaster in front of his children. By March, half of the schools in the province had closed and attacks reached an average of one a day.

We are losing ground. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq--24/7--Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. There are no time lines, no deadlines, no hope, no vision, no plan. The only thing we know from this President is, as long as I am in power, he says, we will be in Iraq.

We are weaker in Afghanistan because of Iraq. We are weaker on homeland security. I call this administration soft on homeland defense because they will not do what needs to be done. There are things we could do right now, today, that absolutely make eminent sense. They are not politics. They are not politics. The 9/11 Commission came out with a number of recommendations, dozens of them. We know they said that it is important that we either screen the cargo for explosives--the cargo that goes on passenger planes--or we have blast-resistant cargo containers installed so if

there is a blast, it will remain inside the container and not bring the airplane down.

Do you think this administration will do this? Let me tell you no, and let me tell you how I know--because I sit on the Commerce Committee. We have jurisdiction over the FAA. Years ago, I had an amendment pass the committee that said: Let's test these blast- resistant containers. Usually they would be made out of Kevlar. If you have ever seen Kevlar, had an experience with Kevlar, you know this is a fantastic product we can use. Oh, no, they are still studying it. And they are still not inspecting cargo.

So when we are told the alerts are up, of course we have every reason to be worried because we are not doing what we should be doing because we are spending $8 billion a month on Iraq, we are spending $318 billion, we are stretching our military thin, we are soft on homeland defense, and we have neglected Afghanistan.

The face of this policy, in addition to the President, is Secretary Rumsfeld. Now as he looks around the world, he has to see it. Everybody does see it. You can dream about a better world, but all you have to do is open any newspaper--I don't care whether it is a liberal or conservative one or independent or moderate--and you know what is happening on the ground all over the world. You see it. From Darfur to Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to North Korea to London--where, thank God they foiled the plot of the terrorists there.

Instead of saying maybe it is time we just look at our priorities and do a little bit more--we all know in America that the war on terror is going to be with us. We all know we have to be prepared. We all know they do not give up. We all know they will try again. We all know al- Qaida is still out there, with bin Laden--but even if it didn't have bin Laden, it would still be out there. Yet what does Secretary Rumsfeld do? He starts a fight by calling the American people, who do not agree with him--the majority, vast majority--appeasers when they understand very clearly that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the war on terrorism and that we are failing on the war on terrorism because we have not invested in it and haven't focused on it. The American people want us to do that. It is time for a new direction.

I brought to the attention of the Senate the threat from shoulder- fired missiles. Two dozen terrorist organizations have them. They sit on the shoulder, they weigh 35 pounds, and they can catch an airplane. Oh, they are slow-walking that. They just don't have the money. They tested it, but they are slow-walking it.

It is time for accountability. I do not think staying the course with a failing policy in Iraq has anything to do with appeasing the Nazis before World War II. Get with the current moment, Mr. Secretary and Mr. President. Let's get a fresh face over at the Department of Defense. Let's move forward with hope. Let's move forward with a plan. Let's win back the confidence of the American people together, all of us. And let's win back the confidence of the world.

I believe it starts with accountability. That is why I plan to support an amendment that will be offered to this bill calling for new leadership at the Department of Defense.

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

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4858, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lindsey Graham be added as the principal cosponsor of this amendment.

I am very pleased with that. I am very pleased he is here. I am also very pleased there appears to be good support for this amendment. We are going to have a record vote because we both believe it is very important to send a loud and clear message about the subject of this amendment.

This amendment ensures that no funds in this bill will be used to enter into an agreement with the Government of Iraq that would subject

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I hope you could modify the request--that no second-degree amendments be permitted.

Mr. President, Senator Feinstein and I would like to thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for their outstanding leadership on this bill and especially for their dedication to ensuring that our Nation's combat-wounded service members receive the best possible services and care.

I would like to ask both Senators to work with us during conference negotiations in support of funding for the Northern California Institute of Research and Education, NCIRE.

This funding will support the work of the Neuroscience Center of Excellence at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center--a state-of-the-art facility dedicated to the diagnosis, prevention, and management of neurodegenerative diseases, brain and spinal cord injuries, and neuropsychiatric disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, that occur in U.S. warfighters.

I had the privilege of recently visiting NCIRE. Let me tell you, the work they are doing is cutting-edge and absolutely vital to our Nation's warfighters and veterans. They are developing new ways to diagnose and treat PTSD in an effort to ensure that our more recent veterans do not share the same fate as so many of those from earlier conflicts, including Vietnam. I had the honor of meeting a Vietnam veteran during my visit to NCIRE who told me that he just got his life back because of NCIRE's work. This is a man who served his country and came back to spend much of his time jobless, homeless, and without hope. NCIRE is working to make sure that our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans do not share the same fate.

Mr. President, today I celebrate the grand opening of the Rotary Clubs of Modesto Centennial Junction section of the Virginia Corridor and to recognize the United Rotary Clubs of Modesto's extraordinary contributions and support for the Virginia Corridor Rails-to-Trails project. When I visited the site in July of 2002, the Virginia Corridor was very much just an idea. However, as a result of the hard work of a number of city officials and staff members, and the determination of a group of motivated citizens, the entire Virginia Corridor will soon become a reality.

The United Rotary Clubs of Modesto, an organization that played an instrumental role to this project, is comprised of the five local Rotary clubs: the Modesto Rotary Club, the Modesto East Rotary Club, the Modesto Gateway Rotary Club, the Modesto North Rotary Club, and the Modesto Sunrise Rotary Club. Together, the local rotary clubs contributed significant funding for the trail segment between Roseburg and Orangeburg Avenues. The rotary clubs donated and installed lighting, a 10-foot wide asphalt trail surface, a kiosk, fencing and irrigation. This quarter mile trail, which will be known as the Rotary Clubs of Modesto Centennial Junction of the Virginia Corridor, features a trail with lighting, landscaping, benches, picnic tables and seat walls.

The Virginia Corridor Rails-to-Trails project is a truly collaborative effort between the city of Modesto, the State of California, the Federal Government, and a host of local community interests that, once completed, will successfully transform a once abandoned rail corridor into a premier linear park, trail and recreational gathering place in one of the fastest growing cities in California's Central Valley.

When completed, the Virginia Corridor will stretch nearly 4 miles from Modesto's central business district to the northern boundary of the city. Once completed, this trail will link neighborhoods by providing a safe and scenic commuter route to schools, parks, and restaurants for bicyclists and pedestrians. The Virginia Corridor will also offer a place for Modesto's outdoor enthusiasts to pursue a myriad of outdoor activities, as it will link three primary bike paths that include: the Hetch Hetchy Trail in North Modesto, the class I trails in Dry Creek Regional Park and the Tuolumne River Regional Park.

I congratulate the city of Modesto on the opening of the Rotary Clubs of Modesto Centennial Junction of the Virginia Corridor. I especially commend the invaluable contributions of the United Rotary Clubs of Modesto which, through their generosity and commitment to public service, have provided a community jewel that will go a long way towards improving the quality of life for the people of Modesto.