Floor Statements

Madam President, despite the outcry for change in the wake of the deadliest shooting rampage in our Nation's history, too many schools continue to be plagued by gun violence. True prevention requires reducing the likelihood of death or injury before an incident occurs. Unfortunately, we have still not done enough to prevent dangerous guns from falling into the hands of those who may intentionally or unintentionally use them to harm themselves or others.

Earlier this month, a group of engineering students at Kettering University, in Flint, MI, gathered in an apartment to celebrate the beginning of their 3-month job co-ops, part of their degree requirements. One of the students stumbled across a 9mm handgun lying on a dresser in one of the apartment's bedrooms. He picked up the weapon, and, after seeing himself in a mirror, made a sudden spin move with it. As he spun around, the gun accidentally discharged. Karl Joseph Hansen, 21 years old and asleep at the time, died of a single gunshot wound to the head.

Because a loaded handgun was present in an otherwise unremarkable

celebration, one student was left dead and another has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Such an event is extremely difficult to comprehend. For the people and families directly involved, it is nearly impossible.

Shortly after the tragedy at Kettering University, following a heavy night of drinking, an undergraduate student at Yale University decided it would be a good idea to fire one of his pistols in the basement of his fraternity house. When he heard the shots, a visitor to the school ran downstairs to investigate. The student responded to the visitor's requests for him to put the gun down by firing two rounds of blanks at the ceiling. When the visitor then tried to convince the student even blanks could be dangerous, he is reported to have responded by asking ``Why don't I point it at your head and find out?'' When the student was subsequently arrested, police discovered an AK-47 assault rifle, AR-15 assault rifle, two rifles, a shotgun, several other pistols and nearly 5,000 rounds of ammunition in his bedroom. He has been charged with two counts of illegal possession of an assault rifle, unlawful discharge of a firearm, reckless endangerment in the first degree, threatening in the second degree, and breach of peace in the second degree.

Time after time, we see these tragedies reported in the news. Yet Congress has not taken the necessary steps to help control these acts of violence or ease the anxiety that many parents and families feel each day as their children head off to school. By removing firearms from potentially dangerous situations, we can prevent these types of tragedies from occurring. Congress should take up and pass sensible gun legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. President, the PATRIOT Act required that DHS triple the number for border patrol agents at the northern border, the Trade Act of 2002 required 285 additional customs inspectors for the northern border and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 included a provision that authorized an increase of 2,000 U.S. border protection agents each year from FY2006 through FY2010 and further required that 20 percent of the increase in agent manpower each fiscal year be assigned to the northern border. However, nearly a third of those agents have not been deployed to the northern border. According to the Congressional Research Service, the gap between the authorized level of Customs and Border Protection officers at the northern border and the actual number of officers deployed there will be roughly 1,517 in FY2008.

I am pleased that the Senate just passed the Graham-Pryor amendment that will provide $3 billion for border security and 23,000 full time agents to our borders. I ask my friend from West Virginia, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is it the intent of the amendment to provide those assets to both the northern and southern borders, and, to further implement the authorizations I mentioned, to deploy more agents to the northern border?

Mr. President, I will support final passage of the Homeland Security appropriations bill today because its funding is vital to our first responders and all of those responsible for protecting us.

Although all Americans are united in our commitment to secure our homeland, the administration's budget has too often not reflected that commitment. In particular, we have not kept faith with our first responders by giving them the tools they need, and we have not done enough to secure our borders. I am glad that this bill will make much needed improvements on these and other issues.

The bill appropriates $37.6 billion for homeland security programs for fiscal year 2008, which is an increase of $2.2 billion over the President's budget. Perhaps most significantly, the legislation provides vital funding to our first responders to protect our country from a terrorist attack and ensure that we are able to respond adequately should such an attack occur. Specifically, it provides $525 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, $820 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative, $700 million for the assistance to firefighters grants and $300 million for emergency management performance grants.

To secure our borders, a total of $10.2 billion is provided for Customs and Border Protection. I am pleased that, in addition to the funding in the underlying bill, the Senate also adopted an amendment to add an additional $3 billion for border security which will enable the Department of Homeland Security to hire, train and deploy 23,000 additional full-time boarder patrol agents and provide other essential security measures at our borders. The legislation also provides $4.432 billion for immigration and customs enforcement, including $146 million for 4,000 new detention beds.

Finally, I want to note that the bill increases funding for the Transportation Security Administration by $164.6 million above last year's level, which is $764 million more than requested by the President. It provides $529.4 million for the procurement and installation of explosive detection systems at airports.

The funding levels in this bill reflect our commitment to protecting the American people, and I am hopeful they will be maintained in conference and that we can quickly get this legislation to the President for his signature.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will finally pass the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. Over 3 years ago, the 9/11 Commission gave us its recommendations, and we are finally taking a big step toward implementing them. Let me mention a few highlights.

This comprehensive legislation goes a long way toward helping our first responders. First, it establishes a $400 million annual grant program dedicated to funding interoperable communications equipment. We know that lives were lost on September 11, 2001, because first responders could not communicate. The same situation continues to play out across our country every day. For years, I have been urging the Department of Homeland Security to establish a dedicated funding source for interoperable communications equipment. I am pleased that this legislation creates a grant program dedicated to improving operability and interoperability at local, regional, State, and Federal levels. Second, to improve collaboration and help identify solutions to communications problems on our international borders, the legislation also includes language that I authored that establishes International Border Community Interoperable Communications Demonstration Projects on the northern and southern borders. These demonstration projects will address the interoperable communications needs of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guard, and other emergency response providers at our borders and will improve the ability of U.S. personnel to work well, for example, with their Canadian counterparts.

Another key accomplishment is that the legislation provides a more equitable distribution of homeland security grant funding. For the past 5 years, the largest homeland security grant programs distributed funds using a formula that arbitrarily set aside a large portion of the funds to be divided equally among the States, regardless of size, need, or risk. This legislation allocates more of the funding based on risk. Specifically, the legislation would reduce the funds guaranteed to each State from 0.75 percent to 0.375 percent of grant funds in fiscal year 2008; the minimum would then decline over a period of 5 years to 0.35 percent in fiscal year 2012 and thereafter. All other funds would be distributed to States based on the risk of acts of terrorism and the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed use of the grants.

Also included in the bill is language I authored that will require the Department of Homeland Security, before publishing the final rule, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI, including the cost to the State Department and resources required to meet the increased volume of passports requests. The WHTI seeks to require individuals from the United States, Canada, and Mexico to present a passport or other document proving citizenship before entering the United States. While we need to make our borders as secure as they can be, we also need to make sure that we are achieving that goal in a way that will not cause economic harm to our States. A cost-benefit analysis will help ensure we identify and weigh the expenses and benefits of the WHTI.

The legislation also takes important steps to shore up rail, transit, bus, air and cargo security in the United States. It establishes a grant program for freight and passenger rail security upgrades and requires railroads shipping high-hazard materials to create threat mitigation plans. It establishes

a grant fund for system-wide Amtrak security improvements and much needed infrastructure upgrades. It authorizes studies to find ways to improve passenger and baggage security screening on passenger rail service between the U.S. and Canada which should identify what is needed to prescreen rail passengers on the northern border. I hope these studies will also advance a long standing effort I have undertaken to implement a preclearance system at other land crossings so that, for example, we can inspect vehicles for hazardous materials before they cross bridges and tunnels between U.S. and Canada.

In addition to improving rail security, the bill establishes grant programs for improving intercity bus and bus terminal security and public transportation system security. It takes steps to improve the safety of transporting radioactive and hazardous materials on our railroads and highways. I am also pleased that this legislation requires the screening of all cargo carried on passenger airplanes within 3 years. It also requires all containers to be scanned for radiation at foreign ports before entering U.S. ports. The legislation also establishes an appeal process at the Department of Homeland Security for passengers that believe they have been wrongly included in ``no-fly'' or ``selectee'' watch lists.

While the conference report takes important steps toward implementing many 9/11 Commission recommendations, I am disappointed that it fails to address one critical recommendation and excludes several provisions that were in the Senate-passed bill.

The 9/11 Commission report stated: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.'' I am troubled that the conference report does not contain critical provisions--included in the Senate-passed bill--that were intended to strengthen congressional oversight and promote independent and objective intelligence analysis.

There is a long, painful history of congressional efforts to obtain information from the intelligence community that have been slow-walked or simply not answered. The bill that passed the Senate required the intelligence community to provide Congress timely access to existing intelligence information unless the President asserted a constitutional privilege. Unfortunately, the conference report excludes that provision.

The Senate-passed bill also provided that no executive branch official could require the intelligence community to get permission to testify or to submit testimony, legislative recommendations, or comments to the Congress. That provision was also stripped from the conference report. We should insist that the intelligence community be able to provide Congress its assessment of intelligence matters uninfluenced by the policy goals of whatever administration is in power.

It is important for whistleblowers to know that they can come directly to Congress if they have evidence that someone has made a false statement to Congress. And Congress has a right to that information--even if it is classified. The Senate-passed bill made it clear that intelligence community employees and contractors can report classified information directly to appropriate Members of Congress and cleared staff if the employee reasonably believed that the information provides direct and specific evidence of a false or inaccurate statement to Congress. That provision was also removed in conference.

While I am disappointed that the conference report does not contain these provisions, on balance it is a good bill and I am pleased that we are passing it today--both for the families and friends of those we lost on September 11, 2001, and for the security of our Nation.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I have offered the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act as a stand-alone bill that incorporates the provisions of the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act as marked up by the Armed Services Committee and as amended when offered as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act and passed by a vote of 94 to 0.

Our wounded warriors cannot wait, and should not have to wait, for us to finish the Department of Defense Authorization Act to get the relief contained in this bill. The bill incorporates the ideas of many Senators and the consideration of both the Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. A total of 51 Senators have cosponsored this legislation. It is truly a bipartisan effort to address shortfalls in the care of our wounded warriors. I am delighted the Senate is passing this bill today so that we can move forward to conference with the House of Representatives to reach agreement on a bill that both the House and Senate can pass and send to the President.

This bill addresses the issue of inconsistent disability ratings by requiring that the military departments use VA standards for rating disabilities unless the Department of Defense rating is higher. The bill adopts a more favorable statutory presumption for determining whether a disability is incident to military service by adopting the more favorable VA presumption. The bill requires two pilot programs to test the viability of involving the Veterans' Administration in the assignment of disability ratings for the Department of Defense. The bill also establishes an independent board to review and, where appropriate, correct unjustifiably low Department of Defense disability ratings awarded since 2001.

This bill also addresses the lack of a seamless transition from the military to the Veterans' Administration by requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on the care and management of injured servicemembers who will transition from the Department of Defense to the VA. The bill establishes a Department of Defense and a Department of Veterans Affairs interagency program office to develop and implement a joint electronic health record.

This bill authorizes $50 million for improved diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of military members with traumatic brain injury, TBI, and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. The bill requires the establishment of centers of excellence for both TBI and PTSD to conduct research and train health care professionals. The bill requires that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, report to Congress with comprehensive plans to prevent, diagnose, mitigate and treat TBI and PTSD.

This bill increases the minimum severance pay to 1 year's basic pay for those separated with disabilities incurred in a combat zone or combat-related activity and 6 months basic pay for all others. This is quadrupling or doubling, depending on the circumstance, the current arrangement. The bill also eliminates the requirement that severance pay be deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone.

This bill also addresses the problem that exists because medically retired servicemembers who are eligible for Tricare as retirees do not have access to some of the cutting-edge treatments that are available to members still on active duty. The bill does that by authorizing medically retired servicemembers to receive the active duty medical benefit for 3 years after the member leaves active duty. This can be extended to 5 years where medically required. The bill authorizes military and VA health care providers to provide medical care and counseling to family members who leave their homes and often leave their jobs to help provide care to their wounded warriors. The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act requires the Secretary of Defense to establish standards for the treatment of and housing for military outpatients. These standards will require compliance with Federal and other standards for military medical treatment facilities, specialty medical care facilities, and military housing for outpatients that will be uniform and consistent and high level throughout the Department of Defense.

This bill also includes measures proposed by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs under the leadership of Senator Akaka that address shortfalls in the VA system for care of our wounded warriors after their transition to the VA.

So in summary, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act is a comprehensive approach that lays out a path for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to address shortfalls in the care of our wounded warriors while they remain in military service, during the transition from the military to the VA, and after this transition, while in the care of the VA.

Our wounded warriors deserve the best care and support that we can muster. The American people rightly insist on no less. This wide- ranging legislation will improve the provision of health care and benefits to injured military personnel and make the system much more efficient as well.

Mr. President, today, marks the culmination of yet another journey towards making college more affordable with the passage of the Higher Education Amendments, and with the passage several days ago of the Higher Education Reconciliation Act. It represents the single largest Federal investment in higher education since the GI bill. I am pleased to support this legislation because it reflects a commitment to expanding access to higher education and making it more affordable. It opens the door to those previously denied educational opportunity due to a lack of adequate financial resources or who could not carry the burden of excessive student loan obligations.

This legislation is a great victory for students and families across America, including my home State of Michigan, which would receive over $80 million above the current $429.8 million in new assistance for the upcoming academic year and an additional $689.6 million over the next 5 years.

I have long supported efforts in the Senate to expand the availability of student aid and to ensure that students have access to a postsecondary education, including raising the maximum Pell grant award. This much-needed legislation increases the maximum Pell grant from $4,310 to $5,100 in 2008, building upon our efforts in February of this year when we passed a significant increase in the maximum Pell grant award to $4,310 from $4,050, the first increase in 4 years.

This legislation also increases the income level at which a student is eligible for the maximum Pell grant; caps monthly student loan payments at 15 percent of discretionary income; encourages public service by providing loan forgiveness for borrowers who commit to public service; simplifies the financial aid process for all students; and reforms the student loan system so that it works for students rather than lenders.

There is one fact that we cannot escape, which is that more and more students and families are struggling to pay for college at a time when access

to a higher education is increasingly important in a competitive, global economy where training beyond a high school education is required.

The legislation will protect working students by increasing the amount of student income sheltered from the financial aid process. The cap on Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income will bring much-needed relief to students with the burden of excessive loans. For example, a social worker in Michigan with one child earning $45,620, with student loan debt of $19,000, would have his or her monthly payments reduced by 12 percent. Forgiving the debt of borrowers who continue in public service careers, such as law enforcement, nursing or teaching for 10 years will be provided significant relief under this bill. For instance, a starting teacher in Michigan earning $35,557 with the State average loan debt of $18,942 could have monthly payments reduced by 20 percent. After 10 years of teaching, all remaining debt would be forgiven, in this case, a benefit worth $10,906.

A student's access to higher education ought not depend on his or her family's income. Working families and aspiring students across this country are struggling to obtain the financial resources to secure a college education. Low and middle income students who have managed to enter and stay in college are graduating with unprecedented levels of debt. This legislation responds to this crisis.

The passage of this bipartisan legislation is a notable accomplishment.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Arizona is now going to be making some remarks. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Arizona finishes his remarks, Senator Kennedy be recognized.

Well, I think on our side there will be many speeches supporting this amendment, perhaps some opposing the amendment.

I hope so. And I hope people will want to speak, will come and speak on the amendment, because hopefully we can get to enough votes tomorrow so that we can actually have a vote on Levin-Reed, that we can get to 60 votes, to achieve cloture. We would then be able to have a vote on the pending amendment. Other than that, we would be thwarted. There would be a procedural roadblock in reaching a vote on Levin-Reed.

So that is the goal, if everyone is given a chance to speak on Levin- Reed, whatever side they are on, so that we can then, hopefully, end the debate on Levin-Reed and actually get to a vote on it.

Mr. President, there is indeed, as I understand it, a consent which has been already reached that there be a vote on the Cornyn amendment at 2:45. There was an offer yesterday, as a matter of fact, to, I believe, simply accept that amendment, but someone wanted to have a rollcall vote on it. That is their right.

If the Senator would yield, it is my fervent hope that we have a bill this year. It is not only my intent to try to work out amendments, it has been our intent for many days to work out those amendments. I understand there is some kind of a procedure that some Members on your side have insisted upon which has slowed down that process significantly. So our staffs and I, and I know the Senator from Arizona, the ranking member on the committee, are more than ready to work out these amendments, as many as possible. Usually, we can work out as many as 100 on an authorization bill. I think there are 190 amendments filed. We are up to the task. Our staffs are up to the task. We have to be allowed to proceed. I understand there is some kind of roadblock that perhaps the Senator from Arizona could identify and help to remove.

I believe it is set for 1 hour after the Senate convenes.

There is no time for that yet, for the Senate to come in tomorrow. We have to await that.

If the Senator would yield further, last week, we did accomplish a major achievement in terms of the wounded warrior legislation, which is now on this bill, and I believe, on Friday, there were speakers on the Iraq issue, on Levin-Reed and other amendments, and there were yesterday as well. So the debate on the Iraq amendments has taken place, and it is now going to continue today and into the night. Hopefully, we can get to a vote on Levin-Reed and not be thwarted by this 60-vote procedural roadblock.

Again, I want to say something that has been the case before. We had a number of votes on Iraq in the last authorization bill, and those were 50-vote votes. There was not a threat of a filibuster that deprived the Senate of voting on those amendments in the last authorization bill. For instance, there was a Levin-Reed amendment in the last authorization bill which I believe received 39 or 40 votes. There was also a Kerry amendment on Iraq which was voted up or down without that procedural roadblock.

I would hope that on this bill, given the absolute importance of this issue and the expression of opinion of the American people last November about this issue, that we would be allowed to vote up or down and to remove that 60-vote filibuster threat, the roadblock that has now been put in the way, and will determine tomorrow whether cloture will be invoked and that roadblock can be removed. But the Senator is correct, there is ample opportunity for people to come down today to continue the debate on the Iraq amendment should they choose.

I thank my friend for his willingness to always sit down and try to work things out. The roadblock here to our proceeding will be either kept in place or removed tomorrow with the vote on whether to allow Levin-Reed to come to a vote. The Senator is right that there have been times when people have filibustered matters. There have been times when they have decided not to. On the Iraq issue, on the last authorization bill, there were votes up or down without a 60-vote procedural roadblock being put in place to the then Levin-Reed and Kerry amendments. So that is the precedent we established last year that I would hope the Republican leader would allow to be followed, because--one other comment--I can't think of a more appropriate place to be debating Iraq policy, frankly, than on an authorization bill. Whether I am right or wrong, that is what happened last year. I hope it will again be followed this year.

I thank my good friend. My remarks will be coming this afternoon.

Senator Kennedy will be following the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I think everybody in this body would like to leave Iraq better than we found it. That is not the current situation. The current situation is chaos and violence in Iraq. It is an Iraq that is torn apart by sectarian violence. When you have group slaughtering group in a civil war, a sectarian type of war, it requires that the Iraqi political leaders take action to end the violence. The only way to end the violence is if the Iraqi political leaders will reach a political settlement. I think almost everybody agrees with that. I think our uniformed military agrees with that, our civilian leaders agree, and almost everybody agrees that there is no military solution in Iraq, and that the only solution, the only way to end this violence is if the Iraqi political leaders accept the responsibility to work out political agreements on a number of disagreements they have identified for themselves.

We talk a lot about benchmarks, and the President said the other day that on eight benchmarks we are making progress, and on eight we are not--to make it sound like we have a glass that is half full. But that is not what the facts sustain or support. The facts are that we have a glass called Iraq which has a hole in the bottom. Whatever we pour into Iraq goes right through that hole. It is going to continue to do that until one thing happens, and that is that the Iraqi political leaders decide they are going to work out a political settlement. There is a consensus about that, I believe, among almost all of us.

The Iraqi Prime Minister made the following statement, and every one of us, when we vote on Levin-Reed, ought to keep this one statement in mind, I believe, first and foremost. This is what Prime Minister Maliki said:

The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the

cycle of bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.

Well, it is long overdue that the politicians in Iraq step up to their responsibility. The amendment before us, it seems to me, states something which is clear. I believe it is obvious that it is in everyone's interest that Iraq not be a failed state. I agree with my friend from Texas. That should be a goal of everybody. The problem is that Iraq is the No. 2 most unstable state in the world right now. That is the status quo. That is what we have to end. The only way to end it is with a political settlement by the Iraqis.

There was an article a few days ago in Foreign Policy magazine called ``The States That Fail Us.'' It is about failed states. It has a list of about 60 states, and they give all of the indicators of instability. Iraq is No. 2 on the list, right after Sudan. That is the status quo. That is what we are trying to end--the failure of a policy in Iraq which has led the Iraqi leaders to believe that there is an open-ended commitment on the part of the United States to give them protection in that green zone to the extent that it exists. It is that open-ended commitment of the United States that must end--if we are going to prod the Iraqi leaders to finally step up, look into the abyss and make a decision, do they want a civil war or do they want a nation?

Mr. President, we cannot save them from themselves. To say that we don't want a failed state in Iraq is to say we don't want the status quo to continue, that the course must change in Iraq.

So I will vote for the Cornyn amendment because I think it states, in general terms at least, what I hope Members of the Senate would all agree on--that a failed state in Iraq is not in the interest of this Nation.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I need Senator McCain to listen. Apparently, the time the Senator from Arizona took on his reservation came out of our time, and I am wondering if he would give us a minute.

Mr. President, on the question of the 60 votes, there is a procedural roadblock which is being placed here. It is not the first time in history, of course, but a decision has to be made here whether the verdict of the American people last November that there be a change in policy is going to be thwarted by that procedural roadblock, and the Republican leader has apparently decided it will be.

In terms of precedent, last year on the Defense authorization bill, there

were at least two votes on Iraq, both majority votes. That is the precedent. Last year, there was a Levin-Reed amendment that received 39 votes and a Kerry amendment, both on Iraq on the Defense authorization bill, the most recent experience. This issue is so vital. It is so much in the minds of the American people that we should not throw up procedural roadblocks to allowing the Senate to vote. That is why we have asked that we be allowed to vote up or down on this amendment, and that apparently has now been objected to.

Madam President, tomorrow's vote in the Senate is not a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. It is a vote on whether the Senate will allow us to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. It is a vote on whether the Senate will break a filibuster so that the Senate can express its will, which I think is totally clear and reflects the will of the American people as expressed last November.

A change in course in Iraq is critical for our national security. If you think the present course is working, if you think we are making progress, as the President has said month after month, year after year, then presumably you are going to vote against the Levin-Reed amendment--if we can ever get to a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. But if you believe that changing course is the only hope of success in Iraq, that forcing the political leaders of Iraq to accept responsibility for their nation and to work out the political settlements that could prevent this violence from continuing and lead to the ultimate success in Iraq, and if we can get to the Levin-Reed amendment and break the filibuster, then you will be voting yes.

Madam President, it has been more than 4 years since the United States invaded Iraq. Despite a military victory that toppled Saddam Hussein and routed his army, Iraq soon became victim to a Sunni insurgency, to Shiite militias bent on revenge, and became victim to an incursion of al-Qaida terrorists whose actions were aimed and are aimed at promoting an Iraqi civil war.

As the situation on the ground has shifted, so has President Bush's rationale for our involvement. He took us into Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. When no weapons of mass destruction were found, the President said we needed to create a democracy in Iraq. Now the President says we must stay on to fight al- Qaida.

The President had a pre-surge strategy, a surge strategy, and now he has offered a post-surge strategy. What has remained constant in all of these strategies is one thing: They all have an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces in the middle of Iraq's civil war.

That open-ended commitment of a Muslim country by the West has played right into the hands of al-Qaida. Indeed, the intelligence community is recently reported to have concluded that the years of our occupation of Iraq have seen a surge of al-Qaida in Iraq.

It has come at a staggering cost--the loss of more than 3,600 of America's best and bravest, seven times that many wounded, and a price of $10 billion each month. In spite of the heroic efforts of the U.S. service men and women, chaos and destruction have deepened in Iraq.

Yet, month after month, year after year, the President has touted progress in Iraq and called for patience. It has been a litany of delusion. Just listen to President Bush's repeated claims of progress.

In October of 2003, President Bush said:

We are making progress about improving the lives of the

people there in Iraq.

On September 25, 2004, the President said:

We're making steady progress in implementing our five-step

plan toward the goal we all want: completing the mission so

that Iraq is stable and self-governing, and American troops

can come home. . . .

On April 28, 2005, the President said:

I believe we're really making progress in Iraq. . . .

On October 28, 2005, the President said:

Iraq has made incredible political progress. . . .

On November 14, 2005, the President said:

Iraqis are making inspiring progress toward building a

democracy.

On May 25, 2006, the President said:

We are making progress on all fronts.

On March 19, 2007, the President said:

There has been good progress.

The exaggeration and the hype continues to this day. On June 28, a few weeks ago, the White House press release stated:

The Iraqi security forces are growing in number, becoming

more capable, and coming closer to the day when they can

assume responsibility for defending their own country.

But in the benchmark assessment report released last week we read:

There has been a slight reduction in units assessed as

capable of independent operations since January 2007.

That is referring to Iraqi units. Even that turned out to be an exaggeration. Just 2 days later, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, told the press that the number of Iraqi Army brigades that were capable of independent operations had fallen from 10 to 6--quite a difference from a ``slight reduction.''

Madam President, one merely has to take note of recent incidents in Iraq as reported in our newspapers to know that things are not going well in Iraq and that the administration's assessments of progress have been consistently overblown through the years and continue to be overblown.

Consider the headline in USA Today on July 12: ``Iraqi police assist gunmen.'' The story described our Army investigation into a January attack in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers. Our investigation concluded that the Iraqi police who were supposed to be partners with American troops colluded with insurgents.

Then there was this story in the New York Times on July 14: ``U.S. Troops Battle Iraqi Police in East Baghdad.'' Those are the police who are supposed to be on our side trying to quell the violence in Baghdad, not attacking American troops.

On the all-important area of political benchmarks, consider this headline from the Financial Times of June 18: ``U.S. Military Frustrated at Lack of Iraqi Reconciliation.'' The story reports that General Petraeus said there has not been any ``real substantial achievements in terms of political reform in progress.''

Reuters reported on June 18 that Iraq was ranked the second most unstable country in the world behind Sudan in the 2007 Failed States Index, produced by Foreign Policy magazine. Failed state? Obviously, we don't want Iraq to be left as a failed state. It is failing. It is on a failing course. If we don't change that course, it is going to continue to descend into that failed status.

The administration's recent self-assessment of benchmarks that there is progress on 8 of the 18 benchmarks would have us believe that the cup in Iraq is half full rather than being half empty. Eight of eighteen--that sounds pretty good, like progress. But as a matter of fact, Iraq is a cup with a hole in its bottom. We keep pouring in our men and women and resources, and there is a hole in the bottom of that cup through which they go.

It is that Iraqi hole that Secretary Gates addressed on June 14 in Baghdad when he said the message he was delivering to the Iraqi people was that ``our troops are buying them time to pursue reconciliation and that, frankly, we are disappointed in the progress thus far.'' Secretary Gates was accurate in saying that ``our troops are buying [the Iraqis] time to pursue reconciliation.'' But what he left unsaid is that our troops and our Nation have paid, and continue to pay, far too high a price to give the Iraqis that opportunity, and the time is long past due for the Iraqi political leaders to accept responsibility for their own future.

Secretary Gates' statement that we are ``disappointed in the progress'' was surely an immense understatement. The American people are downright incensed at the failure of the Iraqi leaders.

Everybody agrees there is no military solution in Iraq and that the only way to end the violence is for the Iraqi political leaders to settle their differences. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki acknowledged that last November when he said--and these words should be seared, I believe, into the consciousness of each of us as we vote, if we are ever allowed to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. Here is what he said:

The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the

cycle of . . . bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi]

politicians.

Our service men and women are dying and being wounded while Iraqi leaders dawdle. The Iraqis themselves made commitments to share resources and power, amend their constitution, hold provincial elections, and take over responsibility for their own security in many more places than they have. They made the commitments last year in writing, but they have not kept them.

Secretary of State Rice recently confirmed in a letter to me that Iraqi leaders themselves, including their Presidency Council, had approved those benchmarks and the associated timeline. Secretary Rice wrote me:

We have confirmed with Iraqi President Talabani's chief of

staff that the benchmarks were formally approved last fall by

the Iraqi political committee on national security. This

committee includes the presidency council, the President, and

the two vice presidents, as well as the leaders of all the

major political blocs in Iraq.

Well, the Iraqi leaders' record on meeting the political timelines, which they approved themselves with a timeline, is abysmal.

For example, they said they would approve provincial elections and set a date for those elections by October of 2006. That has not been accomplished. They didn't do what they promised they would do.

The Iraqi political leaders said they would approve the hydrocarbon law by October 2006. That was not done. That has not been accomplished. They didn't do what they said they would do. The Iraqi leaders said they would approve a debaathification law by November 2006. They didn't do what they promised to do. The Iraqi political leaders said the Constitutional Review Committee would complete its work by January 2007 and hold a constitutional amendment referendum by March of this year. They did not do what they promised they would do.

This is not us imposing our benchmarks on them, this is the Iraqi political leaders who adopted their benchmarks, and have not met them.

I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Rice and her response be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Madam President, while our troops have done everything, and more, of what has been asked of them, while they have risked their all and given their all, the Iraqi political leaders remain frozen by their own history, unwilling to take the political risks that only they can take.

If there is any hope of forcing the Iraqi political leaders to take responsibility for their own country and to keep the commitments they made to meet the political benchmarks that they set and to make the compromises that only they can make, it is to have a timetable to begin reducing American forces and to redeploy those forces to a more limited support mission instead of being everybody's target in the middle of a civil war.

We need to send a clear message to the Iraqi leaders that we will not be in Iraq indefinitely, that we will not be their security blanket forever. That is what the Levin-Reed amendment would do if we are allowed to vote on it. Our amendment would require the President to begin reducing the number of American troops in Iraq within 4 months of enactment.

It would require transitioning the mission of our remaining military forces to force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and targeted counterterrorism missions. Our amendment would require that the transition to those limited missions be completed by April 30 of next year. Finally, and importantly, it would call for a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy, including sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and seeking an appointment of an international mediator under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council in order to try to bring stability to Iraq.

Some have criticized our amendment because it contains a timeline for the completion of the transition to new missions. We received similar criticism in the past about the timeline for the commencement of the transition. Timelines need to be established as the only way to force a change of course in Iraq and to force the Iraqis to accept responsibility for their own future. It is human nature to put off difficult decisions. Passage of our amendment would serve as a forcing mechanism and serve to stimulate action by the Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement.

Delaying action until the receipt of the administration's plan in September would only delay the time when Congress applies the needed pressure. There is no indication that Iraqi political leaders will compromise without our pressure. Indeed, there is every indication they will not. As Secretary Gates stated in April:

Debate in Congress . . . has been helpful in demonstrating

to the Iraqis that American patience is limited . . . The

debate itself and . . . the strong feelings expressed in the

Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive

effect in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is

not an open-ended commitment.

There is no indication the administration is willing to change course. For years, they have deluded themselves and the Nation with claims of progress while Iraqis descended into sectarian violence and chaos. On July 4, President Bush repeated his call for patience which he has made so many times over the years.

After more than 4 years, over 3,600 U.S. deaths, seven times that many wounded, and expenditures of $10 billion a month that we are borrowing from the future to finance this war in Iraq, the President's pleas for patience not only have a hollow ring, it is exactly the wrong message to the Iraqi leaders. Our message should be we are out of patience, and the refusal of the Iraqi leaders to work out their political differences is something which is no longer acceptable.

Congress attempted to respond to last November's election with a vote that we made on April 26. We adopted a bill that did provide a timetable to begin the reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq, the beginning of a phased troop reduction, redeployment in no more than 120 days, and a transition to a more limited mission focusing on counterterrorism, force protection, and training and logistical support for the Iraqi Army. President Bush vetoed our bill shortly thereafter.

Senator McConnell made a statement which was, I believe, very direct and very accurate, when he assessed not too long ago that ``the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall.'' That Presidential veto does not wash away the handwriting on the wall. It only makes the handwriting clearer and firmer that there is going to be a change of direction in Iraq.

So the question is: Why wait? Why not decide on a change of course now to save months of lost and wounded lives and huge additional expenditure of funds?

The clearer the handwriting on the wall is to the Iraqi political leaders and the quicker they read it and accept it, the greater the prospect for political settlement.

The clearer the handwriting on the wall is that the open-ended commitment of President Bush is over, not just rhetorically but in reality, the greater chance that an even wider civil war can be avoided.

There are some who acknowledge that a change of course is needed in Iraq, including U.S. troop reductions but who then say not now. But surely time is not working for us in Iraq. The sooner we shift strategy to force Iraqis to take responsibility, the better.

If we wish to improve the chance of a positive report on political progress in September, we need to put great pressure on Iraqi political leaders in July. We cannot and must not continue to have the lives of American servicemembers held hostage to Iraqi political intrigue and intransigence.

If we can get to the Levin-Reed amendment, if we can overcome the filibuster, and if we can adopt the Levin-Reed amendment which provides for the beginning of the reduction of our forces in Iraq in 120 days and transitioning to more limited missions, no more than 120 days after enactment, if we can adopt an amendment which says we will complete that transition by April 30, 2008, if we can adopt our amendment which provides for the appointment of an international mediator under U.N. auspices, we believe we will have passed the best chance of success in Iraq, and we will have adopted the only course of action which has a chance of pressuring the Iraqi leaders to do what only they can do.

The clock is ticking. We are losing more American lives and more American resources every day we delay. The time has come to set deadlines, to reduce our forces in Iraq, to transition to the new limited missions, and to embark on a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy to bring stability to Iraq.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2007.

Hon. Condoleezza Rice,

Secretary of State,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Secretary: I am writing in connection with your

letter of January 20, 2007 in which you advised me regarding

a set of benchmarks that the Government of Iraq has set for

itself.

You wrote that ``Iraq's Policy Committee on National

Security agreed upon a set of political, security, and

economic benchmarks and an associated timeline in September

2006. These were reaffirmed by the Presidency Council on

October 16, 2006, and referenced by the Iraq Study Group; the

relevant document (enclosed) was posted at that time on the

President of Iraq's website.''

Yesterday, I met with Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Prime Minister

Maliki's national security adviser. During the course of our

meeting, Dr. Rubaie stated that the Presidency Council never

reaffirmed the benchmarks. He was adamant on this point even

after I showed him the statement in your letter.

This is an important point as the Presidency Council, whose

three members, President Jalal Talabani (Kurd), Deputy

President `Adil `Abd al-Mahdi (Shia Muslim) and Deputy

President Tariq al-Hashimi (Sunni Muslim), are elected by the

Council of Representatives and represent the three major

ethnic groups of the country.

Earlier today, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack

stated ``These are the benchmarks that they've laid out for

themselves. We didn't come up with them. They came up with

them. And they need to be seen in the eyes of the Iraqi

people as delivering for the Iraqi people.''

It seems to me that it would make a difference if the

benchmarks and associated timeline were only approved by an

advisory group as compared to the Presidency Council.

Accordingly, please confirm that the benchmarks and

associated timeline, which you attached to your January 30,

2007 letter, were reaffirmed by the Presidency Council after

being agreed upon by the Policy Committee on National

Security, as stated in your letter.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin,

Chairman.

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

Mr. President, I understand our staffs have reached a point where we were able to clear something like 26 amendments on this bill but that there is one last hurdle on the Republican side. I am wondering whether my good friend from Arizona feels there may be a possibility that we can jump over that hurdle in the next couple hours.

I thank my friend.

I understand the Senator from Nebraska wants the floor, and I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator will repeat that.

Objection.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Maryland finishes her remarks, then on the Republican side, I understand Senator Warner will be the next speaker, and then that Senator Schumer be recognized on our side.

I thank my friend from Maryland.

If I can respond to my good friend's question.

We know what we hope will happen, and there are some things we can predict that will happen.

What do we know? We know that Iraq is in chaos. We know that the Iraqi President, or Prime Minister more accurately, has said the only way to end the bloodletting of innocents in Iraq is if the Iraqi leaders reach a political settlement. We know that. We know there is no military solution in Iraq. We know there is only a political solution and that the violence cannot end unless Iraqi leaders reach a political settlement.

I think those are consensus points. Those are things we know. We know how many of our troops have been killed and how many are killed every

month and how many are wounded and come home. We know those things.

Then the question is: Since there is no military solution, there is only a political solution--that is the only hope of succeeding in Iraq--how do you promote a political settlement in Iraq? Is the current course we are on succeeding or do we need to change the course?

We all have the same goal. We all want to maximize the chances of success in Iraq. If you believe we are succeeding in Iraq now, then you vote to stay the course. If you believe after all these years and all these deaths and all these wounded and all these expenditures, now over $10 billion a month, that we need to change course because we are not succeeding in Iraq, you have to ask yourself: How do we change course? How do we change what is going on in Iraq?

So those are the things that we, each of us, I think in our own conscience, are trying to figure what is the best way to maximize the chances of success in Iraq. I believe the only hope in getting the Iraqi leaders to reach the political settlement, which everybody agrees is the only hope, is to force them to accept responsibility for their own nation, to work out the political differences on revenue-sharing, on elections, on debaathification amendments, and on constitutional changes.

They have been dithering for years. They made a promise to their people, to the American people, and to the world last year. It is on their Web site, 16 of their benchmarks--not ours, their benchmarks. They have not carried out the commitments they have made. There was a timetable attached to those benchmarks. I put that timetable in the Record. It was part of a letter that Secretary Rice sent to me.

So we have a situation--

They are different.

Some are the same, some are different, but they are political benchmarks which the Iraqi leaders said they would meet. They made those benchmarks. We didn't impose them, those are their benchmarks. The letter from Secretary Rice makes it explicit that the Presidency Council, which represents all the factions in Iraq, formally adopted those benchmarks. They were supposed to have been adopted in October, November, December, January, and in February. They have not been met.

How are we going to get them to meet them, to keep an open-ended commitment, which is what the President wants us to do. Another delay and then patience. The President asks us to be patient? We should be downright impatient with the Iraqi leaders. The message to the Iraqi leaders shouldn't be, for heaven sakes, after all these casualties, that we are going to be patient with them when it is in their hands as to whether this civil strife is going to end.

If the Senator will yield for an answer.

I think the Senate spoke also prior to adopting your amendment. We voted 51 to 48, adopted an amendment which said we will begin to reduce our forces and to transition to the new mission, and that we would begin that transition within 120 days. That was vetoed by the President.

The Senate spoke even before it adopted the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. So we have spoken in many ways over the years. But now it is our belief, those of us who support this amendment, that the earlier we put pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political solution, which everybody agrees is the only hope, the earlier we put that pressure on them, the better.

I think the Senator is well aware this President is not compelled to veto anything. As a matter of fact, the report the Senator refers to, which is due in September, will be coming in before this bill gets to the President. At least there is some hope the President will see what the Republican leader in the Senate saw a month ago. It was the Senator from Kentucky who a couple of months ago said: The handwriting is on the wall. There is going to be a change of course in September.

Now, why wait? We are losing men and women, our best and our brightest, our bravest, every day in Iraq. Those who return wounded will have a lifetime of recovery in many cases. We have record numbers of problems that have come up--post-traumatic stress disorder, we have traumatic brain injuries which are plaguing our troops who survive. Thank God we have great medical care on the battlefield. Why wait until September? The Republican leader said the handwriting is on the wall. There is going to be a change of course in September. There should be a change of course, not just in September, it should have changed a long time ago. But there is no way to change this course unless the leaders of Iraq do what only they can do, what their own Prime Minister said had to happen before the bloodletting of innocents ends in Iraq. They and they alone have it in their hands to work out the political settlement, which, according to their own agreement, was supposed to have been reached months ago.

I thank my friend, and I don't view this at all as personal.

A matter of fact, we had this interim report on July 15. What did it come in and say? It came in and said, on the political side, nothing has happened in Iraq; and on the political side, we see no advances. But the political side is

where the advances have to take place. As a matter of fact, the President said, when he came up with this surge policy, that the purpose of the surge was to give the political leaders an opportunity to reach a political settlement.

Well, they have had that opportunity, they haven't done it, and the surge has not accomplished anything in the area of a political settlement.

If the Senator will yield, I think we all share that view, but the amendment, if it is anything, it is not precipitous. This is coming after a great deal of debate. We have had a vote on this. The Senate voted to do something very similar to this, and it was vetoed.

We have a 120-day period to begin to reduce forces. That is not precipitous. That gives the Iraqis notice, now 4 months more notice after enactment, which can't come for many months, that they have to begin to get their political act together.

Reserving the right to object, could we add that the next Democratic speaker will be Senator Feinstein?

Mr. President, I think that is precisely what has been typed up, and that is our intent, that those last four 10-minute slots be allocated in the way the Senator from Arizona has proposed.

Mr. President, has that previous unanimous consent request been adopted?

Mr. President, I understand now the Senator from Florida is seeking recognition; is that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on this side, following the Senator from Florida, Senator Bingaman be recognized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Bingaman, Senator Lautenberg be recognized on this side--just on this side.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Bingaman for that. I was not aware of that. Let me revise the unanimous consent request. Before I do so, in light of what Senator McCain has said, let me inquire of the Democrats--I say to Senator Lautenberg, if you could stay here for 1 minute. I am wondering if the Senator from Florida could give us an idea of the amount of time he needs.

Should we say up to 10 minutes each?

Mr. President, let me now revise the unanimous consent request in this way: that Senator Nelson be recognized for up to 10 minutes, that Senator Lautenberg be recognized for up to 15 minutes, that Senator Bingaman be recognized for up to 10 minutes on this side, with alternating to the other side.

I say to the Senator I think that would leave 35 minutes to be allocated on your side.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I will yield myself the remainder of my time.

Just about everybody now agrees there is no military solution in Iraq and that the only way to end the violence is for the Iraqi political leaders to settle their differences. Their own Prime Minister Maliki acknowledged that in November when he said, in words that all of us should remember:

The crisis is political and the ones who can stop the cycle

of . . . bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi]

politicians.

Our brave service men and women are dying and being wounded while Iraqi leaders dawdle. The Iraqi leaders themselves made specific commitments to pass legislation relative to sharing power, sharing resources, amending their Constitution, holding provincial elections. They made those commitments to be achieved by specific dates. They were their commitments. We didn't impose them on them. These are their commitments that they have not kept. Because they have not kept their commitments, our troops are paying the price, caught in a crossfire of a civil war.

If there is any hope of forcing the Iraqi political leaders to take responsibility for their own country, it is to have a timetable to begin reducing American forces and to redeploy our forces to a more limited support mission instead of being everybody's target in the middle of a civil war. That transition is the only way we can force the Iraqi leaders to act.

If the Republican leader's procedural roadblock proceeds this morning, we will be denied the opportunity to vote on an issue which just about every American has strong feelings on: whether to change course in Iraq by setting a timetable to reduce the number of our troops in Iraq. Because of that procedural roadblock, we will not be voting at 11 o'clock on Levin-Reed but on whether to proceed to vote on Levin-Reed.

Our amendment deserves the chance to be voted on by this body. The American people deserve that vote. They deserve to know if we support a timetable to reduce our troop presence in Iraq. They deserve to know whether each of us favors a change of course in Iraq. If you do not agree with our amendment, vote against it. But do not prevent the Senate from voting on it, expressing our will on this critical issue. The American people deserve for us to vote up or down, do we want to change course in Iraq in order to improve the chance of success in Iraq, which can only happen if the Iraqi leaders understand we cannot save them from themselves.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on intellectual property and tax treaties.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affair be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 17, to conduct a vote on the nomination of Charles L. Hopkins to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Operations, Preparedness, Security and Law Enforcement). The Committee will meet in the Reception Room, off the Senate Floor immediately after the first roll call vote of the Senate on Tuesday, July 17.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 17, 2007, to conduct a hearing on VA and DOD Education Issues. The hearing will begin at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled Preparations for 2010: Is the Census Bureau Ready for the Job Ahead?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions' Subcommittee on Retirement and Aging be authorized to hold a hearing on the Federal response to the Alzheimer's epidemic during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 628 of the Senate Dirksen office building.

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

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oregon be recognized as in morning business for 15 minutes.

I then ask unanimous consent that the Republican leader be recognized, and then following his statement, which we expect to be about 10 minutes, Senator Durbin be recognized, and then the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, after Senator Durbin; I further ask unanimous consent that if a Republican wishes to speak in between Senators Durbin and Salazar, that Republican be recognized.

I thought it was going to be a morning business UC, but we have protected a Republican speaking in between Senators Durbin and Salazar.

The order would be that Senator Wyden would speak in morning business, then Senator McConnell, and then Senator Durbin, then if there is a Republican, and then to Senator Salazar.

Well, it is the pending amendment. Those who want to speak on the amendment would be free to do so. Hopefully, there will be many people speaking on it because we should have an opportunity before Wednesday.

I have a number of things to say on the amendment, and the things I wish to say in depth I will maybe save until tomorrow. I would not want to speak without your being here.

I feel similarly about your amendment. I think both would enjoy being here when the other speaks. We can arrange that. We have been arranging this for 28 years. We will continue to arrange it.

What section are you reading?

What section of the bill?

Is there a number?

If the Senator would yield so we can follow him, I wondered if there is a number in front of the paragraph you are reading.

Section 14.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

I call for the regular order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sanders be recognized for 3 minutes as in morning business.

I will amend that request.

Mr. President, I amend my request to ask that after the Senator from Vermont speaks, the Senator from Minnesota be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Minnesota will yield before he speaks for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Minnesota is finished, Senator Bill Nelson be recognized for up to 20 minutes on the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Florida, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania be recognized to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the motion now that is pending is the Levin-Reed, et al., amendment. The floor is open for Senators to come and speak on that amendment. I would hope those who have speeches will do that. We need to get to a vote on this amendment early next week. There is no reason this amendment should be the subject of a filibuster with the subject that is on every American's mind. They want us to be able to vote up or down on this amendment. I hope it is not necessary that there has to be a cloture motion, because the Senate should express its will on a subject of this importance. But this is one of the many times that will be available in the next few days to speak on this amendment. We will be here Monday afternoon. We are here now. We will be here Tuesday, obviously, before the meetings of our parties at lunch. But I would hope people would take advantage of this opportunity to come and speak, pro or con, on the pending amendment, because there is no excuse for a filibuster on an amendment of this importance that the entire country is watching. This is one of a number of opportunities we are going to have in the next few days for Senators to express their opinion. I hope they will use this opportunity.

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

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

Mr. President, we know of two speakers who do wish to come over here shortly, about 11:20 and 11:30. We do not know of any other speakers who wanted to be recognized at this point.

We are on the bill now. In a moment I am going to ask consent that we go into morning business, with speakers limited to 10 minutes each. But I want to note my good friend from Virginia has suggested that we make it clear to the body that we are on the bill now. The amendment which is pending is the Levin-Reed, et al., amendment, and that we will, after we leave here today, be returning on Monday, at a time that the leaders will set, to this bill. This bill will be the pending matter. This amendment will be the pending matter on Monday when we return.

I thank the Senator from Virginia for suggesting that we make that clear.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we also urge colleagues who still have amendments they wish to have considered to bring those amendments here to the floor by noon; to bring them here on Monday, because Senator McCain and I have both spoken on the necessity of getting amendments that are going to be filed to be filed by the end of business on Monday.

We have a lot of amendments we have got to consider. Hopefully we can clear some. But the body would be very--colleagues would be doing the body a favor to get these amendments in if there are any additional amendments they want to consider.

Mr. President, while the Senator from Virginia is on the floor, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators recognized for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Sullivan and Asmita on Senator Harkin's staff be granted floor privileges during today's debate.