Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the people of the Darfur region of Sudan are crying out for help during their time of despair. It is time for the U.S. Government to exercise greater international leadership and take greater strides to stave off a humanitarian disaster.

Darfur has been identified as genocide and the international community is permitting it to continue. This is not acceptable.

It is not enough to posture and threaten the government in Khartoum. It is time to exercise moral leadership and exercise more muscular diplomacy in an area where so little has been accomplished for so many.

The conflict in Darfur has been raging for 4 years. Since 2003, the Sudanese Government and its allied Janjaweed militia have been fighting the rebel Sudanese Liberation Army--SLA, and the Justice and Equality Movement--JEM. The SLA and the JEM claimed their aim was to force the Sudanese Government to address the underdevelopment and political marginalization in the region.

In response, the government and the Janjaweed targeted the region's civilian population and the ethnic groups from which the rebels draw their support.

Since the fighting began, over 200,000 people have been killed. Approximately 3 million people have fled to internal displacement camps within Darfur, or to neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic--C.A.R. None of these options have shielded them from violence as the Janjaweed has patrolled outside the camps and Sudanese warplanes have attacked inside Chad and C.A.R.

In the face of these horrendous conditions, an estimated 14,000 aid workers risk their lives to provide basic human services and comfort to one-third of the population in Darfur. The majority of these aid workers are Sudanese nationals who have banded together to create an unprecedented relief operation.

For its part, the United States provides approximately $1 billion in food aid to the Darfur region. This contribution is one of the few positive developments for the people in Darfur as we have been able to increase the daily nutritional intake. Nonetheless, the violence rages and many aid agencies working in Darfur are unable to gain access to vast areas because of the fighting.

Thus far only the African Union--AU--has responded to the call to protect civilians. Unfortunately, the AU troops have been deployed in a slow and limited manner.

The Darfur region is roughly 160,000 square miles, and the AU force is far too small to cover this vast territory. The AU should be commended for shouldering the burden this long.

In August 2006, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1706, to expand the mandate of the U.N. mission in Sudan-- UNIMIS--to include Darfur. The resolution ``invites the consent of the Sudanese Government'' to allow U.N. forces into Darfur and ``authorizes use of `all necessary means' to protect U.N. personnel and civilians under threat of physical violence.''

Resolution 1706 calls for a total of 27,000 armed personnel for Sudan. The breakdown includes the 7,000 AU soldiers, 17,000 U.N. blue helmets and 3,000 police officers. This is a significant mission by the United Nations and one

that underscores significant international concern about Darfur.

Without question, U.N. Resolution 1706 caused concern and then foot dragging by the Khartoum Government. Khartoum is wary of a robust U.N. troop presence on its soil for two reasons. First, it fears the investigators from the International Criminal Court--ICC--who will have greater latitude under a U.N. presence. Second, it fears the presence of the U.N. will force them to follow through on the oil revenue sharing agreement with the southern Sudanese.

Khartoum views a U.N. presence as a surrender of sovereignty. However, what it really fears is the ICC investigators being able to gather evidence within its borders. Since the ICC accepted the responsibility of looking into genocide in Sudan, Khartoum has maneuvered mightily to keep its investigators away, out of the country.

Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir has resisted the U.N. force since its inception. As he has done repeatedly throughout the Darfur crisis, he commits and later reneges on commitments and pledges of cooperation in Darfur. For this reason, former U.N. General Secretary, Kofi Annan, gave us a viable Plan A to implement the U.N. force in Sudan.

Plan A implements a hybrid U.N.-AU force which the government of Sudan initially agreed to.

Plan A is a workable option and a win-win for everybody. Unfortunately, President al-Bashir has back pedaled from his initial embrace of Mr. Annan's plan. On November 18, 2006, it was reported Sudan's U.N. ambassador declared ``there will be no U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur.''

The ambassador's comments came as Sudanese war planes and Sudanese- backed militias staged fresh attacks in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic.

It is imperative the United States and the international community reinvigorate diplomacy with Sudan in order to move Khartoum to reason. This is what I would describe as the administration's potential Plan B.

The immediate next steps for Darfur are complex, yet achievable. These include securing a cease fire and protecting humanitarian relief corridors, establishing the hybrid U.N.-AU peacekeeping operation and advancing the political dialogue in Darfur.

Additionally, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice must place Sudan higher on the U.S.-Chinese agenda. Sudan produces some 500,000 and 600,000 barrels of oil per day. China purchases 80 percent of this oil and invests heavily into Sudan's oil producing infrastructure.

As China continues its diplomatic and economic courtship of African nations, she should be clear about how she intends to deal with despotic and authoritarian governments. The international community has worked hard over the past 20 years for greater progress on democracy and human issues in Africa. Having China thumb its nose at these accomplishments would set a bad precedent for Africa and should have consequences in the West.

China should be afforded an opportunity to become part of the solution in addressing Sudan's humanitarian concerns.

Diplomacy and economic leverage should be applied to Sudan with the cooperation of China.

The United States has clearly shown what can be accomplished through sustained and concerted diplomatic efforts. After 21 years of fighting we were able to persuade Khartoum to negotiate with the Sudanese People's Liberation Front--SPLF.

This administration was able to marshal international humanitarian support and the attention of the world to what is happening in Darfur. The United States must provide the vision and the leadership to protect innocent civilians in Darfur.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I will vote in favor of the continuing resolution not because it is

perfect but because it is the responsible course of action for Congress to bring some fiscal sanity back to our Federal budget. The alternative, letting Government come to a screeching halt and blocking services to millions of Americans, is unacceptable.

The resolution we vote on today was drafted under the guidance of a Republican Congress and Republican President. Yet that same Congress, the 109th, refused to make difficult fiscal decisions and instead simply passed the buck to the current 110th Congress. So today we meet our constitutional responsibility to determine the Nation's budget and provide funding for programs that millions of hard-working Americans rely on to make ends meet.

Perhaps most unfortunate, today we are voting for appropriating funds for fiscal year 2007 that for most agencies are the same as fiscal year 2006 levels. In addition, it concerns me that this resolution gives too much power to Federal agencies. Under the formula prescribed in this resolution, each agency seemingly has wide discretion to determine which specific programs get slashed and which receive additional funds. I fear this widespread Federal discretion could have a negative impact on programs critical to Maryland, like the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Small Watersheds Programs, the consolidation of the FDA Headquarters at White Oak, and the Ocean City hurricane protection project, to name only a few. I encourage the agencies to do the right thing and allocate appropriate funds for programs with track records of success because Congress will be watching.

Despite the shortcomings in this resolution, it does include some modest increases for important programs. In Maryland, scientists at the National Institutes of Health are on the cutting edge of unlocking some of our most complicated and devastating diseases. The additional $620 million that this resolution allocates to NIH may lead to a groundbreaking cure or vaccine.

We must continue to do more to make a college education a reality for all families, and I am pleased to see that Pell grants will be expanded to help students afford college. In Maryland, the cost of receiving a public education has increased by nearly 40 percent at some State universities. A college education is key to achieving the American dream, and we must continue to make sure all children regardless of what zip code they live in or how much money their parents make have that opportunity.

Although some of Maryland's environmental programs might be affected, the increased funding in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund will enable Maryland communities to continue upgrading sewage treatment plants to help cleanup the Chesapeake Bay. This is a step in the right direction.

Maryland's transportation systems will also receive a much-needed boost, with an additional $86 million in highway funds and $14 million more for transit funds. Amtrak will also receive much-needed funding so it can continue to help thousands of Marylanders get to work each day.

Again, this continuing resolution is far from perfect, and the circumstances under which we are passing it are far from ideal. It is unfortunate that this Congress was forced to finish the work of the prior Congress, but it is our responsibility to do so. Therefore, I support the continuing resolution and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 80, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 574, introduced earlier today by Senator Reid, is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading and I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon Wednesday, February 14; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with each side controlling 30 minutes; that at the close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the continuing funding resolution; that all time during the adjournment and morning business count postcloture.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, as a new Member of this body, I must tell you that I am frustrated and disappointed. I am disappointed that the Republicans are blocking a vote on whether we support or oppose the President's plan to add additional troops to Iraq. I can tell you that is the issue of the day. That is what my constituents are asking of us, and I think they have a right to expect that the Members of this body are willing to go on record either for or against the President's plan to add additional troops to Iraq.

I have listened to my colleagues. I have listened to my colleagues in committee, and I have listened to my colleagues on this floor, and I think the majority of us want to go on record opposing the surge. Both Democrats and Republicans oppose it. I think there is a bipartisan group that can provide the consensus in this body to go on record against the surge.

Several months ago, the President said we were going to have a new plan in Iraq. Shortly after that, the Iraq Study Group came out with its report. To me, this has been the best analysis of the situation that we have before us. The study group is composed of distinguished members, and it was a creation of the Congress. Secretary Baker, who cochaired the group, served in three administrations and has broad experience in government. Mr. Hamilton, who served in the other body on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Committee on International Relations it is called over there, has served with great distinction both as chairman and ranking member. The other members of the committee--they said we cannot win in Iraq through our military efforts. That is not going to bring success in Iraq. The Iraqis must step forward and defend their own country and we must move forward with new diplomatic efforts. We need ``a new diplomatic offensive'' is what they called it, and they said: We need to start that before December 31, 2006. The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing. We still have not seen that new offensive diplomatic effort.

GEN George Casey said, ``It has always been my view that heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.''

We got the President's plan and the President's plan was more of the same, stay the course but with more U.S. military presence. We had 3 weeks of hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee. Military expert after military expert, foreign policy expert after foreign policy expert, told us that there is a deterioration in Iraq and our policies are not working and we need to move in a new direction. We need to come to grips with the fact that the Iraqis must stand up and defend their own country and we must engage the international community much more aggressively.

I congratulate Senator Warner and Senator Levin for coming forward with a compromise resolution that allows us to go on record opposed to the increased American military presence in Iraq. I do not agree with everything that is in that resolution, but I do think it clearly puts the Senate on record against the increased surge of American troops in Iraq, and that is our responsibility. That is what we should be doing. We should not hide behind procedural roadblocks to avoid voting on that issue. That is the most important issue facing this Nation today, and we should be willing to vote on that issue. It is not about the President of the United States. It is about this body carrying out its responsibility. That is what each of us has a responsibility to do.

Why am I so much against the increase in the U.S. military presence in Iraq? Let me first start with the numbers. The President said the surge would involve 21,500 additional American troops in Iraq. That is not the case. Michael Gilmore, the Assistant Director for National Security at the Congressional Budget Office, testified yesterday before our Budget Committee, and he said it is not going to be 21,500, it is going to be closer to 48,000 additional American troops because the 21,500 are the frontline combat troops. You need the support staff in order to support the 21,500.

The budget the President submitted to us said that is going to cost about $5.6 billion, but CBO now says it is going to be closer to $20 to $27 billion of additional cost, just with the surge, in addition to what we are already spending. The President claims his budget is to balance in 5 years, but he has no cost for the Iraq war beyond 2008.

The numbers speak for themselves. The President is asking us to go along with stay the course but at a higher cost, both in American military presence and the costs to American taxpayers in this country.

The situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Every person who has come before us who is an expert in this area has acknowledged that. There is a civil war in Iraq, and Americans have paid a very heavy price for our commitment

in Iraq--over 3,000 dead and many more with life-changing injuries. There have been hundreds of billions of dollars spent. That represents missed opportunities in America--money we need to strengthen our military and national defense. We have used our National Guard and reservists. We should be supporting them, improving the quality of life for our soldiers and for our veterans. Our soldiers have served with great distinction and valor. We owe it to them to get it right. We owe it to them to do everything we can for a successful outcome in Iraq. That is why it is our responsibility, on behalf of our soldiers, to take up this issue.

We have lost our focus in the war against terror, we have weakened U.S. influence internationally, and, yes, we have lost other opportunities beyond defense because those hundreds of billions of dollars we spent could have been spent to balance our budget, could have been spent to increase our commitment to national priorities such as education and health care and the environment. But we have lost those issues.

The first order of business for us should be to go on record against increasing the American military presence in Iraq. That should be our first order of business. But then we need to do more. I opposed the war from the beginning. I voted against it in the other body. I have been a critic of the President in the management of the war, in his failure to properly engage the international community both before and after going into Iraq, and the decision made by someone in the White House to take out the Iraqi security forces when we went in, that was a mistake. I have been pretty consistent against the President, but we need to do more than pass this resolution. I think we should take up this resolution first. This is the first order of business. But then we need to do more.

The Iraqis have a responsibility to take care of their own security needs in the midst of a civil war. We need to engage the international community with a diplomatic and political initiative so the Government of Iraq has the confidence of the ethnic communities. This is sectarian violence. We need to change the way the Iraqis are doing business and help them through diplomatic efforts. We need to engage the international community. We need more assistance in training Iraqi security forces. You can't do it all by Americans; we need the international community. We need the international community to help us with the humanitarian crisis that is in Iraq. The number of refugees, displaced individuals, is in the millions. We need the help of the international community to deal with the humanitarian crisis. You are not going to have peace in Iraq until you deal with that.

We need the help of the international community on the infrastructure improvements, the economy of Iraq. The American taxpayers cannot do it alone, and we have wasted a lot of our taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We need the international community to help us. In short, we need a new direction, a plan that includes bringing some of our combat troops home, to make it clear to the Iraqis we are not going to be there indefinitely, to make it clear to the international community we expect the Iraqis to take care of their own security needs. That is what we need.

But first things first. Let's take a vote on the President's plan. Let's get that done. Let's stop using procedural roadblocks to prevent a vote in this body but to vote for or against the President's plan to bring more troops to Iraq.

Then we should consider additional options to make it clear it is our responsibility to help bring about a new direction for American involvement in Iraq.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me take us back to 1993 because I had the opportunity, in 1993, to serve with Senator Bunning in the other body, and we were both on the Ways and Means Committee in which this legislation originally was considered.

The tax on Social Security was increased for two reasons. It was done because we wanted to be fiscally responsible and have adequate revenues to pay our bills. But it was done for a second reason, and that is to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds so there would be adequate money in the funds to pay for benefits. We wanted to be responsible. But there was another reason as well. There was another rationale as to why the tax was increased to that rate, and that is to make it more comparable to the tax treatment of private pensions, as to the amount of money the individual has already paid taxes on and that which the individual has not paid taxes on. So there was rationale for what was done in 1993. I wish to make sure that is clear in the record.

But the reason I oppose my friend's amendment, Senator Bunning's amendment, is for three basic reasons. First, this amendment will add $200 billion more to our national debt if it were passed. It would increase our deficit by that amount of money, and all of us are interested in balancing the Federal budget and moving toward balancing it, not making the gap wider. We talk about fiscal responsibility, we talk about pay-go, we talk about other rules. Well, let's start with the amendments we are considering.

The second reason is I think we have to be concerned about taking our general funds and putting them into the Medicare trust fund. I think that is an issue we should be very concerned about. For the sake of our Medicare system, Medicare Part A is financed

through our payroll tax and through the tax on the extra 35 percent. That is dedicated funding sources our seniors can depend upon to be there for their Medicare system. The Bunning amendment takes some of that money out and says: We will use our general funds to pay for it. I say to my colleagues, seniors are going to be a lot safer by knowing we have a dedicated revenue source that goes into Medicare rather than relying on the transfer of funds into the Medicare system.

So for the sake of our seniors and the Medicare system and for fiscal responsibility, we should defeat the Bunning amendment. All of us want to provide sensible tax policies for our constituents, but let's do it in an orderly way.

This is interesting: I didn't think I would ever say this, but in the Constitution, tax bills are supposed to originate in the other body, and we are not following that order today by considering a tax issue on the minimum wage bill. We would have been better off to keep this bill limited to the minimum wage and consider tax issues when we legitimately have that issue before this body.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Bunning amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, I am prepared to make a unanimous consent request that after I complete my comments, Senator Bingaman will be recognized for 10 minutes, and then the Senator will be recognized for up to 15 minutes, and then Senator Menendez for up to 15 minutes.

No more than 5 to 7 minutes.

Madam President, I take this time in support of the increase of the minimum wage to $7.25. I compliment Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue. I agree with Senator Enzi that this needs to be done in a bipartisan manner, and I am pleased by the way we are proceeding in the consideration of the increase in the minimum wage.

I would first make the point that increasing the minimum wage will have a positive impact on small business. I agree with the comments that have been made that small business is the economic engine of our Nation and we need to do everything we can to make it healthier for small businesses in this country, but increasing the minimum wage will have a positive effect. I say that because when you look at the total impact on payrolls in this country, by increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour, it represents about one-fifth of 1 percent of the entire payroll of our Nation. It is not going to have a dramatic impact on the cost of labor. What it does is try to help wage earners in this country who are suffering.

I believe in a liveable wage. I believe we need to do much better than a minimum wage, but you need to increase the minimum wage if we are going to be able to get to a liveable wage in this country. We need to do something about the disparities among the incomes of wage earners of America.

We had a hearing in the Budget Committee not long ago. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System talked about the fact that this Nation among the industrial nations in the world has the largest disparity among wealth in wage earners. We need to do something about that. Increasing the minimum wage will have a positive impact on those issues.

The fiscal policy group looked at the effect of minimum wage increases of States that have gone above the Federal minimum wage. I represent one of those States. Maryland has increased its minimum wage to $6.15 per hour. The growth rates in the States that have increased the minimum wage are actually higher than those that have the Federal minimum wage, a growth rate of 9.4 percent versus a growth rate of 6.6 percent.

Every time Congress has increased the minimum wage in prior Congresses, it has had a positive impact on the overall growth of our economy. When you look at the minimum wage increases, if wage earners at the minimum wage had received the same increase in the minimum wage that the CEOs have received over the last 15 years, the minimum wage earners in fast food restaurants today would be making over $23 an hour.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed. Who is affected by it? There are 6.6 million Americans who make the minimum wage. It disproportionately affects women. Although women represent 48 percent of the workforce of America, they represent 61 percent of those who are at the minimum wage. Over 70 percent of the people receiving minimum wage are over 20 years of age, and over one-third are parents--760,000 are single moms.

I mention that because today, if you work 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, and you are a family of 2, you live below the poverty rate. You are doing everything right, working 40 hours a week, don't take a day off for the entire year, yet you are still below the Federal poverty rate.

That should not be in America. We can do better than that. Since the last time we increased the minimum wage, the per capita cost of health care has risen by 60 percent, college costs have increased by 51 percent for public schools, debts for students graduated from college have more than doubled, credit debt has increased by 46 percent, and we have the lowest effective minimum wage in 50 years. The last time we increased the minimum wage was 10 years ago. I was proud to have voted for that when I was in the other body. It is now time that we follow or pass what the other body has done and increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over a three-stage process. It is the right thing to do.

It is not only right for our economy, it is not only the right thing to do as far as how it affects the individual wage earner in trying to bring about some fairness, but it is the right thing to do in regard to what is correct for our country on civil rights.

Let me quote a famous American who said:

We know of no more critical civil rights issue facing

Congress today than the need to increase the Federal minimum

wage and extend its coverage.

That was stated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., March 18, 1966, when the minimum wage was comparable in purchasing power to what it is today when Congress finally increased the minimum wage. We should have increased the minimum wage before now. We have the opportunity to do this in this Congress. Now is the time for us to act. Now is the time for us to work in a bipartisan manner as we have on previous increases in the minimum wage. I hope my colleagues will work on this bill and get it done this week. It is the right thing to do. It will help our economy, and it is long overdue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve as a legislator--first in the Maryland House of Delegates, then in the U.S. House of Representatives, and now in the Senate. I appreciate the trust that the people of Maryland placed in me. And I appreciate how important it is that we adhere to the strictest ethical standards. The American people need to believe their Government is on the up and up.

I served on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from 1991 to 1997. I served as the ranking member of the adjudicative subcommittee that investigated and ultimately recommended sanctions against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In 1997, the House leadership appointed me to serve as the cochairman of the House Ethics Reform Task Force, with my colleague Bob Livingston from Louisiana. Our bipartisan task force came up with a comprehensive set of reforms to overhaul the ethics process. We created a bipartisan package to change House and committee rules. This was the last bipartisan effort in the House to fix ethics procedures. Unfortunately, the ethics process in the House broke down after that.

Here in the Senate, there has been more bipartisan cooperation when it comes to ethics reform. Last year, the Senate voted 90 to 8 to approve a reform bill. And we are getting off to a good start this year, with both the Democratic leader and the Republican leader co- sponsoring both S. 1 and the substitute amendment. Members on both sides of the aisle have been given ample opportunity to offer amendments and have them considered.

As amended, S. 1 represents a significant change in the way elected officials, senior staff, and lobbyists would do business--change the American people are demanding.

When it comes to how we treat ourselves, this legislation revokes the pensions of Members convicted of bribing public officials and witnesses, perjury, and other crimes. S. 1 bans gifts and meals from lobbyists. It slows down the revolving door by extending lobbying bans for former Members and staff. It eliminates floor privileges for former Members who become lobbyists. And it stops partisan attempts, such as the K Street Project to influence private-sector hiring. The bill makes ethics training mandatory for Members and staff.

When it comes to making how Congress works more transparent, this legislation shines a spotlight on earmarks, targeted tax breaks, and tariff reduction bills, to make it clear who is

offering them, and on whose behalf. S. 1 ensures that the minority will get to participate in conference committees, and that conference reports can't be changed after they're signed by a majority of the conferees. The bill requires that conference reports have to be posted on the Internet 48 hours prior to consideration so that Members of Congress, staff, and the public can find out what's in them.

When it comes to how lobbyists are to act, this legislation puts an end to the lavish parties they throw in our honor at the national conventions. S. 1 quadruples the penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It requires lobbyists to file quarterly reports instead of semi-annually. And it directs the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to maintain on the Internet a publicly available database of lobbying disclosure information.

I am pleased to report that the bill contains an amendment that Senator Coleman from Minnesota and I offered to require the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to establish a website freely available to the public that will contain easy-to-understand information on all officially related congressional travel subject to disclosure under the gift rules.

During the debate on S. 1, we have heard over and over again former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' famous dictum, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,'' because it is so true. That is the direction we are moving in by passing this bill. That is what the American people want us to do, and that is what we need to do to regain their trust.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time controlled by the majority. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jack Reed be recognized for 10 minutes at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, on November 7, the voters in Maryland and all around the Nation voted for change. Ten new Senators were elected to this body, six defeating incumbents.

After serving the people of Maryland for 20 years in the House of Representatives, I am honored that they have sent me here, to the other side of the Capitol, where I will continue to fight on their behalf.

The voters in Maryland and across the Nation sent a clear message on November 7: It's time for a change.

Our constituents want things done differently in Washington. They want their interests put before the special interests.

Therefore, it is appropriate that the Senate's first order of business is ethics legislation that will bring greater transparency and fairness to the political process in Washington and help restore the American people's confidence in their Government.

The American people also called for a reordering of our priorities. They want Congress to respond to the needs of families fighting for the American dream.

They want their children to have a better chance at that dream, and they know that achieving it is impossible without stronger communities, access to quality health care, and better educational opportunities. They want to raise their families in an energy-independent Nation with cleaner air and water. They want a country that respects the rights of all, and that celebrates and embraces our diversity.

But the loudest cry in November was the call for a change in our policies in Iraq. Americans overwhelmingly want to see our troops begin to come home and they don't want to see thousands of additional troops go to Iraq.

Iraq is a country today torn by civil war. Victory in Iraq will not be achieved with our military might. It will come only from successfully aiding Iraq in establishing a government that protects the rights and enjoys the confidence of all its people. It must be a government that respects both human rights and democratic principles. The efforts of U.S. soldiers, no matter how heroic, cannot accomplish these objectives for the Iraqis.

For 4 years, our soldiers have helped the Iraqis in ousting Saddam Hussein, providing security to the country and advising and training Iraqi security forces.

Our soldiers have performed their responsibility with bravery and devotion to their country. We honor their service. More than 3,000 soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice and many more have suffered life-changing injuries.

It is well past time for a change in strategy in Iraq. The circumstances on the ground are worsening. Last June, I laid out a plan for success in Iraq. It started with reducing our combat troop levels and having the Iraqis take greater responsibility for the defense of their own country. It stressed the need for diplomatic and political solutions--with the international community engaged in negotiating a cease fire with the warring militias.

I called on greater support from our allies in helping us to train the Iraqi security forces.

And last June, I spoke about the need for a negotiated government in Iraq that would represent all of its ethnic people--Sunnis, Shia and Kurds.

Last month, the Iraq Study Group came forward with similar recommendations--highlighting the need for the President to start drawing down troops. Many military experts agree, including some of our generals on the ground.

As GEN George Casey recently said:

It's always been my view that a heavy and sustained

American military presence was not going to solve the

problems in Iraq over the long term.

On November 7, the American people told us that they too agree that it's time for a change in Iraq.

So when President Bush said several weeks ago that he was reevaluating the

situation in Iraq and would announce a new policy shortly after the new year, there was great hope that the President, Congress and the American people could come together with an effective new policy to help the people in Iraq and advance U.S. interests.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. President Bush has decided to ignore the advice of the Iraq Study Group, many of his own military officials and the American people in making his decision to send 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.

The President's announcement last night represents more of the same, more ``staying the course,'' just now with more American troops in harm's way. An escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq is counterproductive.

Former Secretary of State Collin Powell recently said:

I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into

Baghdad for purposes of suppressing this communitarian

violence, this civil war.

We need a surge in U.S. troops coming home, not a surge in those going to war. We need a surge in diplomatic and political efforts to end the civil war. We need a surge in the urgency of the U.S. engagement of the international community to deal with its regional politics and problems in the Middle East.

This Congress has a responsibility to our citizens to evaluate a clear record of the facts in Iraq.

The hearings taking place in the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees are vital. But our responsibility goes well beyond the hearings. Individually and collectively, we must act with our voices and our votes, speaking out vigorously and taking action against the continued mismanagement of this war.

The American people deserve an opportunity to hear from military experts and administration officials on the consequences of a surge in troops in Iraq. Congress has a responsibility to scrutinize this plan and offer its own recommendations.

In October 2002, in the other body of Congress, I voted against giving the President the right to use force in Iraq. I am proud of that vote. As a Senator, I have the responsibility to acknowledge where we are today and take action that is, in my view, in the best interest of Maryland and the Nation.

I want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq and in the Middle East. I want our soldiers to return home with the honor that they deserve. I want to work with my colleagues to strengthen our military and to make sure that promises made to our veterans are promises kept.

We can achieve these objectives, but they would be more achievable if the President would act on the overwhelming evidence and work with this Congress to truly set a new direction in Iraq. We must begin by starting to bring our troops home, not by escalating troop levels. We need to engage and energize the international community, including our traditional allies as well as other countries in the Middle East. Our primary focus must be extensive political and diplomatic negotiations directed toward the twin goals of a cease-fire and a lasting and stable Iraqi Government. Let that be our mission.

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

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

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