Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and to cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.

Some have argued that the surge in Iraq is working, but all you have to do is look at the facts to know that is not the case. The President went to Anbar Province, which at the moment he is touting as a place of success, but we all know what is happening in Iraq. Many other provinces are in terrible shape. In Iraq, in a certain sense, when you push on one end of the balloon and make things a little better, something pops out at another end.

The fallacy of the President's new policy is amazing. Are we placing our faith in the future of Iraq in the hands of some warlords, some tribal leaders who at the moment dislike al-Qaida more than they dislike us? Make no mistake about it: They are no friends of Americans. Is this the vaunted clarion cry for democracy in the Middle East that the President announced when he started the buildup in Iraq? Obviously not. This is a policy of last resort. This is a policy of desperation. To say at the moment that some warlords in one province in Iraq happen to be shooting at al-Qaida when 6 months from now they could easily turn around and resume shooting at Americans, which they did in the past, is nothing to base a policy on. What kind of policy is it? What are the odds that 6 months from now, the fragile and perilous situation in Anbar will reverse itself and collapse? We have heard of success stories every 6 or 8 months: This province, this town, this city--they are clear, they are safe. Then, because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation.

Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaida said to these tribes: we have to fight al-Qaida ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here; it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here, and that is because there was no one else there protecting them.

As I said, we have heard about successes in the past. They are temporary. They are not based on any permanent structural change or any permanent change in the views of Iraqi citizens. We have heard about success in Baghdad. We have heard about success in Fallujah. We have heard about success in this province and that province, and it vanishes like the wind. So now, at a time when the people of America are crying out for a change in course, are some going to base a temporary situation in one province--Anbar--based on a few warlords who don't believe in democracy and who don't like America, as a way to continue the present misguided policy? It makes no sense.

It makes no sense because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same. There is no central government that has any viability. The Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunnis dislike one another far more than they like or want any central government, and these two facts doom the administration's policy to failure. Only 7 or 8 months ago when the President began the surge, he said it was to give the present Government breathing room, to strengthen the Maliki government. Today, we have more troops, more military patrols, more death, and the Iraqi Government grows weaker. How can we regard the Bush-Petraeus surge as a success when its central goal--to strengthen the Government--has failed? Again, more troops, more American deaths this summer than any other, and yet the Government is weaker, when the very purpose of the surge was to strengthen the Government and, in the President's words, to give it breathing room. By the President's own words, the Government is suffocating while the surge goes on. It doesn't have breathing room.

Why isn't it apparent to the President? Why isn't it apparent to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the stated goal of the surge is failing? Strengthening the central government has not happened. As the surge and the number of troops goes up, the strength of the central government goes down. That equation says failure in the Bush-Petraeus surge.

The goal is not a military goal. In the President's own words, it is to give the Government of Iraq greater stability, greater breathing room, and that Government, by just about every standard, is worse off than it was before. Again, because a few warlords and tribal leaders are now temporarily on our side for the moment, even though they are not loyal to us, they don't like us and they dislike the central government, that is why we should continue the present course in Iraq? It makes no sense.

Then those on the other side of the President say, give us a chance; you are already declaring defeat. If this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006, maybe those words would have some resonance with the American people. But there has been new plan after new plan, new hope after new hope, and they all are dashed within months. Why? Why? Again, because the fundamentals on the ground don't change. The Kurds, the Shiites, the Sunnis dislike one another more than they like any central government.

If you look at the benchmarks, they show that. The independent GAO report showed little progress being made in meeting the 18 military and political benchmarks set out by Congress. The draft report from last week showed only three of the benchmarks had been met. However, over the weekend, the Pentagon revised the report and now miraculously an additional four benchmarks were ``partially met.'' Despite the apparent efforts by the Pentagon to edit this independent report, it will sadly take much more than a red pen to correct the failures of the President's Iraq policy.

So the surge, by the President's own stated goal, has failed. The central government is weaker. The fundamentals on the ground continue to deteriorate. There continues to be no loyalty to a central government in Iraq and no loyalty to Maliki, who seems to almost revel in his incompetence. The bottom line is very simple: We are worse off, not better off, not even the same, in Iraq today than we were 6 months ago. The position of America, the position of democracy, the position of stability, continues to erode.

If there was ever a need for a change of course in Iraq, it is now. I plead with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. You know we have to change course. The President has thrown you this magical sort of temporary solution--Anbar Province. Don't be fooled. It is no different than Fallujah was a few years ago, or Baghdad, or all of these other ``successes.'' They are not successes because the facts on the ground are the same.

The American people--three-quarters--cry out for a change of course in Iraq. The President doesn't hear them. The President doesn't look at the facts on the ground. The very same fallacies that led us into this war--that there were weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was at the center of a nexus of terrorism--are now blinding my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from changing course in Iraq--the same types of false statements and pretenses. It is time to change course for the sake of the soldiers who are valiantly defending us; for the sake of moving on and having America focus

on other international problems and not have them be exacerbated by the war in Iraq; for the sake of the $500 billion to $600 billion we spent that could be spent here on education and health care and infrastructure; for the sake, ultimately, of the greatness of this great country of ours, we must change course in Iraq. We must do it now.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

The bottom line is very simple. We are worse off today in Iraq than we were 6 months ago. The position of America, democracy, stability continues to deteriorate. If there were ever a need for a change in course in Iraq, it is now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is such an honor for me to be here and hear the Senator who has served the longest and cast the greatest number of votes heap high praise on the Senator who is No. 3 in that category. It is such an honor for every one of us, the other 98 who are here, to serve with both of them.

I will be brief because so much has been said, but Ted Kennedy has been a beacon, he has been a mentor, he has been almost a father figure to so many of us in the Senate. He is so committed to the things he believes in, and you hear it in his speeches and you see it even more so in the great craft with which he yields the legislative pen. But unlike some who may love mankind in the abstract, Ted Kennedy also has a quintessential kindness and decency to the individuals of this body and to individuals he just meets. We all see it in him as he walks the halls. Ted Kennedy is a special human being. He would be a special human being in any craft or vocation because of who he is, what he knows, where he comes from. But I think every one of us--from Senator Byrd, No. 1 in seniority in the Senate, to Senator Barrasso, No. 100-- count our lucky stars that we are able to serve with and know a great man such as Ted Kennedy.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. I would first like to extend my condolences to all those affected by the tragedy in Minneapolis. I watched the dramatic footage with horror and I can only hope we can quickly find the cause of this disaster and do all we can to prevent something like this from happening again.

This ethics bill is the product of many hours of hard work, and I commend Leader Reid and Senators Feinstein and Lieberman for their leadership and determination in getting this done. Make no mistake. Today, this body is considering the greatest overhaul of legislative rules and procedure in generations. This ethics bill has passed the House overwhelmingly, and we should do the same without any further delay.

Last November, the American people sent a strong message to its leaders and that message read, ``Enough is enough!'' The people said, ``No more scandals! No more shady dealings!'' The people saw that Congress had needed to fix gaping holes in its ethics rules, and they voted for people they believed would make those changes.

So keeping with our promise to the American people, we developed comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform with an eye towards a quick passage. Back in January, this reform passed with a vote of 96-2. Unfortunately, the will of the people and the efforts of the Senate were stymied and we had to return to square one.

With this bill, however, we have overcome this obstruction and have a chance to pass what is being called ``landmark'' legislation by the reform community. And not a moment too soon. The American people expect their elected leaders to abide by the highest moral and ethical standards. We need to do everything we can to not disappoint them. The conversation at the dinner table should not be about how we let them down. It should not be about how the American people have lost trust in us. And that is why this legislation--and the corresponding message--is so important. It seeks to restore that trust that eroded over the past decade.

With this reform, we are closing loop-holes, enacting restrictions, and creating transparency. These new rules are substantively the same as those passed by this body back in January; any statements to the contrary are simply false.

First and foremost, this bill will improve the culture in Washington by substantively changing the way that lobbyists interact with elected officials. The American public neither wants nor deserves another Abramoff scandal. With this bill, they can now be assured of clean and transparent interactions between K Street and the Hill. Rules will be placed on the travel and gifts that legislators can accept from lobbyists, and the revolving door between public and private employment will be slowed.

Additionally, lobbyists now face additional disclosure requirements. They must now file their disclosure forms twice as often, and certify that they have not given gifts of travel in violation of Senate or House rules. Lobbyists' participation in the campaign process must also be disclosed. Lobbyists must list their campaign contributions, and campaign committees must disclose the names of lobbyists that ``bundle'' contributions to the candidate.

These sweeping changes do not just apply to the lobbyists interactions but also to us and our conduct in the legislative process. This bill will change Senate procedure in various ways and seeks to end ``anonymous holds'' that hamper and disrupt the business of this body.

Additionally, this bill will shine new light onto the sometimes murky earmark process with new levels of transparency. For the first time, all earmarked appropriations and their sponsors must be disclosed to the public on the Internet at least 48 hours prior to Senate action. Not only will this provide the American people with a greater understanding of how their tax dollars are being spent, but it allows for a more comprehensive debate on the Senate floor to help ensure we are spending those same tax dollars wisely. Furthermore, each Senator must now certify that neither they nor their immediate family members will profit from any earmark they are requesting. This lends legitimacy to the projects that we fund, reassuring Americans that they are indeed necessary, and not just enriching politicians and their friends.

When we were all voted into office, the public enlisted their trust in us to act appropriately. We must not take that responsibility lightly. We must always strive for the high ground--where the process is clean and clear, and where the behavior is exemplary.

America expects nothing less from us.

So, Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this monumental bill, and I hope that the Senate sends a message to the American public that we too are sick of corruption, shady dealings, and lies. This bill will take a giant leap forward to end that behavior. We cannot--and should not--wait any longer.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the America COMPETES Act. I applaud the bipartisan group that put together the America COMPETES Act, an extraordinary bill that will provide invaluable resources to ensure that the United States does not lose step with our global competitors.

We live in a global marketplace and if our students are to compete with students from around the world, they must have the benefit of a first rate math and science education taught by first rate math and science teachers. This new program will vastly improve the chance that our high school students are taught math and science by the best and the brightest.

That is why I am particularly proud of one provision that I authored that has been included in this conference agreement. This provision will establish a new program called the National Science Foundation Teaching Fellowship within the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. I wish to express my deep gratitude to Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Alexander and Enzi for including this important provision in the bill. I would also like to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Clinton, for her valuable support.

The provision creating the NSF Teaching Fellowship is modeled on a bill I introduced last Congress, the Math and Science Teaching Corps Act. The Math and Science Teaching Corps was in turn modeled after a highly successful New York City program called Math for America.

Math for America's mission is to improve math education in our Nation's public schools by recruiting top math and science college graduates to become teachers and providing financial incentives to make these jobs competitive with the graduates' other opportunities.

The program has made tremendous strides. Over 100 teachers teach in nearly 60 New York City public schools. By 2011 the program will support at least 440 teachers. I can only hope that the new NSF Teaching Fellowship will be so successful.

The NSF Teaching Fellowship program is about paving the way for the future. It will ensure that leaders in math and science train the next generation of innovators--instead of leaving the classroom for research or other jobs. This model program is working in New York City, and now, with the America COMPETES legislation, it will be expanded to the rest of the country.

We need this program to reverse a dismal trend. Our students are not currently prepared to compete in a technology-intense economy. In the 2003 PISA math assessment that compared 15-year-old students across the world, American students ranked 24th out of the 29 participating countries--here in the U.S., in math, 24th out of 29. How can we compete when our students are falling behind?

A 2005 mathematics assessment of twelfth graders by the National Assessment of Education Progress found that 61 percent of high school seniors performed at or above the basic level, and 23 percent performed at or above the proficient level. For science, 54 percent of twelfth graders scored at or above the basic level. Eighteen percent performed at or above the proficient level. This is unacceptable.

Students currently studying math and science will be the fuel that powers our economy for the next century, and we must give them every chance to achieve, excel and thrive. The NSF Teaching Fellowship is a significant step.

Inspirational and brilliant teachers will make an enormous difference. To attract these role models, we need to level the playing field, and ensure that these future teachers can afford to teach. Only one-third of math teachers and less than two-thirds of science teachers majored or minored in the subject they teach. It is not hard to understand why. Starting salaries for math and science majors can be as much as $20,000 higher in the private sector than they are for public school teachers.

The NSF Teaching Fellowship will help reduce these barriers. The program's structure has a rigorous selection process and incentives built in to improve retention. NSF teaching fellows will have to take a test to prove their strengths in math or science. Then they enroll in a 1-year master's degree program in teaching that will give them teaching certification, and it is all paid for. They will agree to teach for at least 4 years, and for those 4 years, they will receive bonuses on top of their salaries. These individuals will infuse our schools with a deep passion for and an understanding of math and science and will share their knowledge with other teachers in their school.

To retain our current teachers who are outstanding at what they do and can provide expertise in the classroom that our teaching fellows won't yet have, there is another category called NSF master teaching fellows. Master fellows are current teachers who already have a master's degree in math or science education. They will also take a test demonstrating they have a high level understanding of their subject area. For the next 5 years they will serve as leaders in their school, providing mentorship for other teachers in their department as well as assisting with curriculum development and professional development. For these 5 years they also will receive bonuses on top of their salaries.

We all agree that every child deserves effective, high-quality professional teachers. And there are thousands of wonderful teachers in our country. But we need more. Without them, children will have difficulty reaching the high standards we want them to achieve. The federal government has long worked to ensure that all children have equal access to a quality education, no matter where they live. We must encourage and fund well-designed programs, such as the NSF Teaching Fellowship to incite rapid improvement in the quality of the Nation's future teaching workforce.

I urge all my colleagues to support this monumental bill, the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so that I may offer four amendments.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Byrd, Senator Murray, and Senator Cochran for their leadership on this outstanding bill which will help make America safer and, of course, we in New York particularly care about homeland security. I want to commend the committee for putting together a bill that shows the Nation where our priorities lie. After years of shortchanging the Department of Homeland Security, the committee has now put forth a bill that will sufficiently fund the Department, in my judgment. In the next year, DHS will finally be equipped to do its job of making our Nation safer from harm.

The bill will make America safer by investing in high priority projects--such as the kind of technology we need to keep us safe--while also protecting us at our borders, in our skies, at our ports of entry, and on our subways, rail, and mass transit systems.

Amendment No. 2416 to Amendment No. 2383

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2416.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing an amendment that will require the Government to test an array of possible card technologies before creating new passport cards for land border crossings.

Under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the Department of Homeland Security is moving toward new rules to require travelers to show a passport or an approved alternative document at land ports of entry. As we all saw from the record passport backlogs over the past few months, the Nation suffers when the administration makes big changes at the border without adequate preparation. Yet with the new passport cards, DHS and the State Department seem to be rushing forward blindly again. They have already issued a proposed rule on passport card technology, but when I questioned officials from DHS and the State Department, they admitted they had not done any on-the-ground testing of their proposed cards. This lack of testing is especially shocking because the administration is making a very unusual move in trying to use a type of technology that has weaker security capabilities than some of the other options that are out there. We don't know whether it would work on the border unless we test it.

I think that with proper preparation and testing, we can have a border document that is both secure and efficient, that preserves both security and allows commerce to continue to flow freely across the border. That is what I want to see. But if we let the DHS push this forward, I am concerned that travelers will get the worst of both worlds.

DHS in this case has it all backward. They need to do the testing before making a final choice of technology. We need to know that any new cards will be reliable, secure, efficient, and easy to use. If the administration won't do that testing on its own, then Congress must step in. My amendment says DHS and the State Department need to do a serious evaluation comparison of two or more card technologies before they issue a final regulation to start selling these cards to people. This is a smart and straightforward way to make sure the administration is spending money wisely. I can't see why anyone would object to it, and I hope we can certainly agree without much controversy to pass it into law.

Amendment No. 2461 to Amendment No. 2383

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 2461.

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

Mr. President, the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program reimburses local law enforcement for security services that TSA requires at all airports around the country. But due to a planned expansion, the program is not fully funded at the level needed to maintain the present level of service. Currently, 275 airports are part of the program, which is funded at $64 million. As the program moves from a reimbursement agreement model to a cooperative agreement model, TSA hopes to include 300 airports, but they will attempt to do this with the same level of funding used for 275 airports. Most of these airports are smaller, rural. They are not the kind of airports that can easily come up with the tens of thousands of dollars that might be required. So this is a smart and straightforward way to make sure the administration is spending money wisely. My amendment will make sure the level of security service provided at airports does not suffer as more airports become part of this important program.

Amendment No. 2447 to Amendment No. 2383

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 2447.

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

Mr. President, I am joined by my New York colleague Senator Clinton and my colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez, in offering an amendment to fully fund the Securing the Cities initiative at the level of $40 million. This is what was requested by the President. Securing the Cities is an innovative partnership between the Federal Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and local law enforcement to set up a ring of radiation detection devices around the perimeter of urban centers to stop dirty bombs or nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Detection Office chose the New York region as the first area to pilot this approach, and local authorities have been working together for months to plan and train. But the committee proposes to provide only three-quarters of the funding requested by the President.

When it comes to protecting cities from nuclear or radiological attack, we can't stop halfway. Securing the Cities is a cutting-edge plan to safeguard the people and assets of our most threatened city centers. This program is moving ahead and it needs the full amount the President requested: $30 million to purchase equipment and $10 million for planning and research. I hope the relatively small amount of money here will be approved without much debate by my colleagues.

Amendment No. 2448 to Amendment No. 2383

Finally, Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 2448.

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

Mr. President, it should be a secret to no one that DHS is far behind in processing visas. One consequence of these lags is that thousands of visas go unused every year. This amendment takes approximately 61,000 of these unused visas from past years and allocates them for two professions that have been hit very hard by the visa crisis: nurses and physical therapists. Hospitals in New York, from the large ones in New York City to the small rural ones upstate, and hospitals around the country are feeling the crunch from the huge nursing shortage. There are now more than 100,000 nurse vacancies nationwide, by some counts.

This amendment doesn't do anything to change existing law, and doesn't--I repeat, doesn't--create a single new visa. It is a one-time fix that does one thing: It takes one small pool of existing visas that now isn't being used and sets it aside for two professions that desperately need the help.

I look forward to working with the committee on these amendments, as I believe they are important additions to the great work the committee has already done. I will ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to first recognize my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, on his efforts to produce this fine bill before us today. His efforts to improve higher education affordability and his willingness to make tough reforms in student lending are going to make a major difference to America's students.

One area in which this bill particularly excels is Pell grants. Pell, as we all know, is an important program. I have long supported it. I commend my colleagues for making such a meaningful investment in the Pell grant program.

We all know, whether you are middle class or poor, going to college these days is a necessity almost. Yet it is harder and harder to afford it. This bill takes care of both the poor and the middle class in a variety of ways, and makes it easier to go to college. That makes it better for the students and the prospective students who will be helped. That will make it better for their families. It will also make it better for America.

The Pell grant program is a critical resource for financially needy college students. In the 2005-2006 academic year, 5.3 million of the Nation's undergraduates received Pell grants. It makes an enormous difference to students whose family incomes are very limited. Most have incomes of less than $20,000; over 1 million in New York alone. One of the great things about America is that we provide ladders up. We are not going to give you an escalator. You are going to have to work to climb. But the Pell grant is a ladder. If you work hard and succeed and go to college, it will be easier for you to go despite the high cost of tuition.

This aid and improvements to the loan programs are critical. In fact, the typical student now graduates with $17,000 in Federal student loan debt. That is a mountain of debt for a working adult, which is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid. It is undeniable that sustaining a talented, college-educated workforce is essential to our success in a global economy. College education has become almost a necessity in the world our young people are facing, and yet it is priced as a luxury. Yet, since 2001, tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities have risen 41 percent. That is after inflation.

Families in New York are certainly struggling with education costs. Even after financial aid is taken into account, 33 percent of the median family income in New York is needed to pay for just 1 year of a 4-year public college. The Federal student loan programs are a critical resource for America's students. Parents deserve a pat on their back when kids graduate from college, not bills and repayments that may break them.

Families trying to afford a college education need our help, whether they be poor, working families, or families well into the middle class. That is why I was proud to author a law that allows students to deduct $4,000 from their tuition. That is why I am proud to be a supporter of this legislation, which helps students--poor students--with increased Pell grants, significantly increased Pell grants, but also those who take out Stafford loans. We limit how much they have to pay back to 15 percent of their disposable income. That will dramatically help those kids.

Democrats have said we are going to take America in a new direction. We said we are committed to strengthening America's middle class. This bill does both of those things, and I am happy to support it.

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

Mr. President, certainly the sentiments of this amendment are absolutely correct. We certainly want to increase deductibility.

As my friend from New Hampshire knows, I have worked long and hard on this and was able to work with some others--the Senator from Maine and some others--to actually get into law and then get extended a $4,000 tuition deductibility for the vast majority of families.

But the trouble with this amendment, of course, is not only is it not paid for, but if it were to be added to this bill, it would rob from Peter to give to Paul because it would undo all of the good things in the underlying bill--not just the Pell grants but the excellent provision that says that no one, even of middle income and higher middle income, should pay more than 15 percent of their adjusted earnings when they pay back their student loans.

So I will be offering a second-degree amendment that says we certainly agree with increasing tuition deductibility but not at the expense of what the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Hampshire are trying to do.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this second-degree amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should provide tax relief to help families afford the cost of higher education, including making tuition deductible against taxes and eliminate wasteful spending such as spending on the necessary tax loopholes, in order to fully offset the costs and forcing taxpayers to pay substantially more interest to foreign creditors.

We do believe on this side in pay-go. We are going to pay for the worthy programs we want to enact and put our fiscal house in order. This amendment expresses that. It expresses the view also that we should not jeopardize that, because if this amendment were to be adopted, it being tax legislation, the bill would be blue-slipped by the House and sent back to the Finance Committee, and all of the good work we have done over the last day or two and the great things that would be done to help those who need Pell grants and those middle-class students who will have their loan repayments capped will be gone down the drain. That is what the second-degree amendment does.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Well, I thank the Chair, and this is a historic night. The Senate will stay in session all night to debate the war in Iraq, something we should be doing. Frankly, Mr. President, we should have done it a while ago.

The bottom line is we need debate and to focus attention on Iraq. We need to change the course in Iraq. We need to bring an end to having American soldiers police, patrol, be wounded, maimed, and killed, as they are in the midst of this civil war not of our country's making.

The bottom line is this. We are here to debate the one true resolution that will force the President to change course in Iraq. Many of us, sadly, and with some degree of frustration, believe the President will not change course. Many of us believe the facts on the ground are not apparent to him or, if they are, do not enter into his decision. The view that military strength, and military strength alone, can prevail in Iraq is wrong. The facts do not measure up. The Shia, the Sunni, the Kurds have had age-old enmity. If I had to sum up the problem with the President's policy in a sentence, I would say this: The Shias, the Sunnis, the Kurds dislike each other far more than they might like any central government of Iraq.

In a certain sense, what we are trying to do here is to take two ``norths'' on a magnet and try to push them together. The minute we release our hands they will push apart. Those are the facts on the ground that cannot be avoided.

We can add another 20,000 troops or another 40,000 troops and might get some degree of pacification for a period of time. As soon as we leave, whether it is in 3 months or 3 years, the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds, and the various factions will be fighting with one another once again.

There is indeed--and I will elaborate--there is indeed a need to protect ourselves from terrorism that might generate from the chaos in Iraq. That does not require 160,000 troops patrolling the streets of Baghdad. Most of what our soldiers do--bravely, gallantly, with great dedication to their country, but unfortunately--most of what our soldiers do has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Yet we continue to send them back and then back again and then back again.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly those who have stated that the present policy is misguided, and even those who probably think it is misguided but don't want to say it out of loyalty to the leader of their party, will take a bold step and join us in supporting the Levin-Reed amendment. All of the other amendments are flawed, in my judgment, because they are advisory. This President will not take advice unless forced to change course. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen in September or October. It will happen. We all know that at some point there will be a group of Republican Senators who will quietly go to the White House and say: Mr. President, unless you change direction in Iraq we will change it for you.

If that is going to happen in 2 or 3 months--and the whispers on the other side of the aisle indicate that is what will happen--why wait? Why sacrifice more life and see so many more soldiers coming home wounded? Why sacrifice the billions of dollars that we are spending at the same time our schools need so much help and our health care system needs so much help? Our energy policy needs redirection.

We live in a changing world. Technology has changed everything about our world. It has created terrorism. Terrorism is a real force. I disagree with those who say we can ignore the fact that terrorism is real. Technology has empowered small groups of bad people and given them the ability to strike at us in our heartland. That is brand new. There have always been small groups of bad people. There have even been large groups of bad people. But they didn't have the ability to hurt us.

The Japanese war machine in 1941, while America slept, could only get as far as Pearl Harbor, and that was a long reach. Yet the several thousand in al-Qaida, far less wealthy and far less strong, were able to strike at the World Trade Center in my city. So terrorism is real. Terrorism is something that we have to fight against.

The problem in the equation that the President speaks about and believes in, that so many on the other side of the aisle speak about and believe in, is that what we are doing in Iraq, it is almost impossible to prove has much to do with terror.

They say al-Qaida might set up camps in Iraq and use those camps as they use the camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan to try and hurt us. That may be true. But what does having our soldiers patrol the streets of Baghdad, or Diyala, or Ramadi or any of the other cities to prevent various tribes and ethnic groups from fighting one another, have to do with that? What does trying--futilely, in my opinion--to buttress the Maliki government have to do with that, when the Maliki government is incapable of doing elementary things, let alone containing al-Qaida?

This war in Iraq has just veered out of control, and a great leader would say that and change course. Without casting aspersions on what brought us there--although we can debate that all day long; whatever happened in the past happened. But the facts on the ground are real. To just about anyone who looks at this with an unbiased eye, what we are doing in Iraq has very little to do with protecting us and, in fact, a good argument can be made it makes things worse every day we stay. Certainly the argument can be made it delays the inevitable, which will happen, which is that the Iraqis are going to have to work out for themselves how they are going to live or not live together, given the age-old enmities.

Yet this President persists. It is not good for the Iraqi people. It is not good for the American people. It is not good for the country that he does. Our job is to require the President to change because he will not do it on his own.

That is why, while I have great respect for my colleague from Colorado and for my colleague from Virginia and

my colleague from Indiana, I don't think their resolutions are what is needed because the President will not change. He knows what our opinion is. He knows what the American people's view of this war is. He doesn't need a resolution to suggest to him to change course. No. He needs to be required to do it. He needs to be forced to do it.

That is the stark choice we face tonight. That is where we are tonight. If you believe that we must change course in Iraq, the only resolution that does that is Levin-Reed.

One other thing: This country needs to do so much. The very technology I talked about, which effects terrorism and creates terrorism, creates other challenges for America. Our schools--when the OEDC ranks the 21 developed countries in terms of their K-12 education--now come out 12th, the bottom half. In math we come out 15th. We are doing virtually nothing to improve our schools, which to me is the ultimate answer to preserve the American economy and American jobs.

Our health care system is broken. There are 45 million people uncovered and many more who are not covered very well. We have a system that doesn't do the basic preventive things that would save lives and save dollars.

On energy we send $1 billion a day overseas to many people we don't like, and we can't get hold of it and change it. Our foreign policy itself needs a new direction where we are able to take on terrorists who might hurt us in a way that develops world consensus. The rest of the world is learning what terrorism is like and why it is evil. We need to change our military to be able to do that. We need to change our foreign policy arrangements to do it.

All of these things and so many more--our infrastructure and our culture are lost because everything in this administration is focused on the misguided policy in Iraq.

The damage and danger of what is done hurts Iraq and it hurts America's reputation in the world. It also hurts us at home because we are spending time and energy and resources on something that just cannot work the way it is. What the Levin-Reed resolution recommends is that we withdraw the vast majority of our troops. We don't abandon Iraq altogether because we know al-Qaida might set up camps, and we know there is a need for some troops--mainly out of harm's way--to protect us from al-Qaida camps that might help train those who might strike at us. But the Levin-Reed resolution would not entail 160,000 troops in harm's way, because they are not needed. There might be 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 troops, mostly out of harm's way, that could protect us from terrorism.

The view that we can train the Iraqis to take over--many of us have lost faith in that. We have heard promise after promise that we should let the Iraqis take over. They don't really want to fight this war because when there is very little loyalty to a central government, it is very hard to build an army in a divided nation.

Many of the other amendments that are before us, in my judgment, are wishful thinking. They believe they will get the President to see the light. I wish that were the case. The President seems adamant. I don't think he will change unless he is forced to change. I don't think he will change unless this body meets its responsibilities and stands up and requires a change.

The President in February said we should wait until the summer. In April he said September. Now we are hearing from some of the commanders: Oh, no, we will have to wait until January.

It is just not working. We pacify one area and violence erupts in another. If we go to that area, then the area that was pacified creates the violence. Temporarily dealing with that violence doesn't solve the fundamental facts on the ground. Therefore, we need change. I do not believe this is an issue of hawks or doves. I think whichever you are, the simple facts on the ground dictate that we should change, and only Levin-Reed has us do that.

I salute my colleagues, the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Rhode Island, for putting together this resolution. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in particular to join with us. You will be joining with us later if you don't join with us today. That is the simple fact of the matter. I hope the Levin-Reed amendment is given its due. I hope it will pass for the sake of Iraq, the sake of our soldiers, the sake of America.

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bunning be allowed to speak until 8:35 and that the majority leader be recognized immediately thereafter.

Probably, yes.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues from Michigan and Rhode Island for their great leadership on this issue, and I want to say that I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Arizona. He said we shouldn't make this debate one of sound bites, and that is one of the reasons I rise.

Repeatedly, we have heard from the other side the slogan ``cut and run.'' When they use ``cut and run,'' that is the same kind of dangerous, nasty sloganeering that got us into this mess to begin with. The other side--some, anyway--seem to have a penchant for avoiding serious debate and instead use slogans as a sort of 2 by 4 to beat the other side into submission. Well, first, I want to assure my colleagues that is not going to happen. We believe strongly in our position, and it is right.

But I want to ask my colleagues who use the slogan ``cut and run,'' do they believe that 70 percent of the American people are for cut and run? Because 70 percent are for withdrawal within a year. Do they believe the brave soldiers who are risking their lives for us are cut and run when they say to us--and many have--that this policy makes no sense? Do they accuse the parents of the loved ones who have died and who then say they do not believe we should be there to be for cut and run?

Let us have a serious debate, as we have had tonight, last night, and this morning. Let us have a serious debate, as we have had, but let us not resort to these slogans, and let us not let fear overtake policy. That is why we got in the mess in the first place.

Let me just review for my colleagues what Levin-Reed does. Levin-Reed says that we begin to withdraw in 120 days, complete the withdrawal by April, and then leave what force is necessary for counterterrorism, training, and force protection. It will be a much smaller force, most of them will be out of harm's way, but it is decidedly not cut and run.

I want to ask my colleagues one more question. When the President, in September, decides to withdraw troops, which he will have to do, given both the facts on the ground and the pressures from his side of the aisle, are those colleagues going to accuse the President of cut and run?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first, I wish to thank both my colleague from Michigan, who does such a profoundly great effort on these proposals and these bills, for the thought and the care and the sensibility that goes into it. I also wished to say that my colleague from Washington, I wished to add my voice, she has been a clarion voice, talking about veterans and their needs and their care long before the issue was front and center, long before the Walter Reed scandal emerged, long before we were able to take over the Senate and put the money of this Nation where its voice has been, and that is behind our veterans.

Now, the amendment that was offered that my colleague from Washington talked about, the dignified treatment of wounded warriors, to honor those who serve us with medical care and treatment they need is another opportunity to demonstrate our support for our troops.

I hope my colleagues will all join us in this amendment and do what is right for those who serve. Unfortunately, yesterday, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked another effort to support our troops with appropriate time at home between deployments. Yesterday they blocked Senator Webb's amendment addressing the serious challenges our military is facing both abroad and home.

I am disappointed that most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle felt it was more important to simply go along with the wishes of the President than support our troops, the brave men and women who are fighting for us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We are putting our most valuable military resource at risk by failing to provide our troops with the resources they need to complete their mission. By that, I mean we are not allowing them enough time to recover in between their deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

My State is home to one of the Nation's finest military academies, if not the finest in the United States, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. West Point produces many of our military's finest leaders.

But while West Point continues to produce excellent soldiers, the Army is unable to keep them. Unfortunately, graduates of West Point are leaving the military at five times the rate they did before the Iraq war. Roughly half of the West Point classes of 2000 and 2001 have left the Army. That is an extremely severe indictment of the President's policies in Iraq.

When these patriots, these young men and women who want to serve their country and enroll in this great institution leave so quickly, which has been uncharacteristic, it says something very severe about the wrong direction our Nation's military policy is pursuing.

That is not all. This January, 3,200 members of the valiant 10th Mountain Division, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, stationed in Fort Drum, NY, learned that their tour had been extended by 4 months. They had been fighting in Afghanistan for nearly 12 months and found out, right as they were to come home, they would have to remain in Afghanistan for an additional 4 months.

That is why I supported Senator Webb's amendment. We have asked so much our of our brave men and women who continue to sacrifice their lives and place themselves in harm's way to defend our Nation. At the current troop rotation rate, we are simply running our troops into the ground.

This hurts us at home, both in declining retention rates and the rise of mental health issues associated with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

As I have said before, I am disappointed that some have felt it was more important to support the President than to support the troops, the brave men and women who are fighting for us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But despite the refusal of the other side to join us in the Webb amendment, Congress will not stop supporting our troops, as we carry on the fight to transform our failing policy in Iraq to a mission that reflects the current situation on the ground.

When the President vetoed our supplemental spending bill, we vowed that we would continue to ratchet up the pressure as the President becomes more and more isolated in his views. Well, here we are. This week we in Congress continue to work toward a solution in Iraq that changes our mission from policing a civil war to more on what should be our first and foremost goal, counterterrorism. Now the pressure on this administration is rising as the people speak out and demand change and more and more Republicans are joining with us and the Democratic Congress in looking toward a change in mission for our troops.

As more Republicans join us in our fight to transform the mission on the ground, the President has only responded with threats and empty rhetoric. So let me be clear: President Bush has to realize we are not going to give up our goal of changing our mission. We will not back down, we will not be deterred, we will not rest until the mission changes; that mission that costs $10 billion a month, because this administration has continued to pursue its policy in fear, empty words, charges that people are not patriotic, charges that people are not supporting the troops, even though that is exactly what we are trying to do here and have been doing. That is not going to work. This debate is not going away.

Even though the President continues to stall, telling the country to wait until September when his general issues a report that everyone else in our country and around the world already seems to know, that our current policy in Iraq is not working, we will move now to change the course in Iraq.

The President would be wise to work with us to change the mission now, not wait until September when this report is issued. If the report had any degree of honesty or integrity, it will show that the mission is not working.

I speak to soldiers all the time, from NCOs and privates to one- and two-star generals. So many of them, when they talk to you privately, believe the mission is not, cannot, and will not work. It seems almost everyone knows this. There are many in the military, particularly in the higher ranks, who are loyal to the President, as they should be; he is the Commander in Chief, but in the hearts and minds of so many of our soldiers, they know the policy is not working.

Every day that we wait, our troops continue to be caught in the dangerous crosshairs of a civil war; every day that we wait, the American people grow more dissatisfied with our failed strategy; every day we wait, more members of your party realize we must change course and call for it.

So the Senate, led by Chairman Levin and our great military expert in this body, the only West Point graduate in this body, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the Senate has an opportunity to send the President even tougher language regarding our policies regarding Iraq.

This amendment does all the right things. It changes the current mission to force protection, training Iraqi security forces, and performing targeted counterterrorism operations. But it also calls for a substantial reduction in our forces in Iraq by next April, and it requires these changes. It is not laudatory, wishful thinking such as some of the other amendments. It is the only amendment that is before us that requires a change of course in Iraq.

That is the right policy for many reasons. First, our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. They patrol the streets of Baghdad, while Sunnis and Shias shoot at one another. Our soldiers are caught in the crossfire. That is not where they belong; a point

that I, along with many of my colleagues, have been making for a long time.

It is clear the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds dislike each other more than they like any central government of Iraq. No number of American troops will change that no matter how hard they try and how valiant they are. The Sunnis, Shias and Kurds also have to work this out for themselves.

Second, we need to focus on Afghanistan, where the planning for 9/11 took place, where al-Qaida is growing in strength. We are not nearly doing enough in Afghanistan to counteract the ever-increasing production of opium there, a problem that threatens the ever fragile Government.

Not only does opium production fuel the heroin trade around the globe, but the heroin funds terrorists who aim to attack the United States and our allies around the world.

Our soldiers have fought long and hard to rid Afghanistan of terrorists and Taliban. However, as the drug trade continues to surge and consume the Nation, their heroic efforts may be undone. The Taliban draws its strength from the drug trade in order to prevent them from reclaiming the country. We need to crack down on the drugs that fuel their regime.

Secretary Chertoff's report said al-Qaida is stronger today than it was before 9/11. That is as severe an indictment of the President's Iraq policy as there could be. The very forces who struck us on 9/11 are growing stronger in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and around the world, while we are bogged down in Iraq.

Could there be any fact that demands change more than that? We were attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaida. The next day, 2 days, 3 days later, I was there as the President stood on that pile of rubble and took the megaphone from the firefighter and said: We will beat al-Qaida and we will beat the terrorists.

They are now stronger than they were before that day. What is wrong? Characteristically and depressingly, the President said al-Qaida is actually weaker than before 9/11, contradicting the report released by his Secretary of Homeland Security.

The President says al-Qaida is weaker. The Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a report saying they are stronger. This is so typically unfortunate of this administration. This is a rerun of the weapons of mass destruction issue that occurred long ago. Make up your mind on what you want to do, ignore all the facts, and no matter what the people around you say, no matter what the American people say, vote for it.

Unfortunately, we have become bogged down in a civil war in Iraq no one has bargained for, as al-Qaida grows stronger in other parts of the world. Being caught in the crosshairs of a sectarian struggle not only puts our troops in harm's way, it means we are not focusing our resources, our energy, and our soldiers on what is the most important thing, which is defeating al-Qaida and terrorists.

Our mission today was not the original mission, and that is why we must change, why it must change to put the focus back on counterterrorism. Every day we continue to follow the President's Iraq policy is another day al-Qaida can strengthen.

That is not just my assessment. That is the feeling of this Congress, including more and more Members on the other side of the aisle; it is the feeling of a majority of the American people and so many in the intelligence agencies.

Today, the President claimed there are some signs of success in Iraq. But this administration's sign of success is very different than most peoples'. The Government of Iraq has failed to meet few of the legislative benchmarks set out by the administration itself. Violence in Baghdad and across Iraq continues unabated. Thousands of refugees are fleeing Iraq every day. Iran continues to support efforts to destabilize the region. Yet the administration still refuses to admit we need to change our failing policy in Iraq.

President Bush and his few remaining allies continue to cling to the fiction that our present course can somehow turn the situation around. The American people know better. This Congress knows better. That is why we keep pushing and pushing and pushing to change the mission in Iraq to one that reflects the reality on the ground.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Levin-Reed amendment. It is the only amendment that requires a change in direction in Iraq. All of the others have good intentions, but they are hortatory. They are offered with good intentions, but they allow people to say: I want a change in policy, but I am not going to force the President to do so. The American people know better. They know that if you really want to change the course of what we are doing in Iraq and change the course in the war on terror, then you must support Levin-Reed. You can't stand for something that says: Well, please, Mr. President, consider doing this, as the other amendments do, because the President won't. The President has been intransigent despite all of the facts on the ground. It is clear this administration has lost its way in Iraq, and this amendment charts the right course forward and requires them to follow it. Despite the stubbornness of the administration, despite their continuing to ignore what is happening in this world, we need to transform our mission in Iraq, and we must do it now.

I hope, I pray, for the future of our war on terror and for the future of this country, that the Levin-Reed amendment gets the required 60 votes and we move forward as a nation together and set our policy right once and for all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to salute our majority leader, Senator Reid, for what he said. The bottom line is, these are two very important pieces of legislation.

The other side cannot come up with many substantive objections, none, as we have heard yesterday when they moved to block it. But they have had a policy of obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. Why, you might ask? How does it help a political party? How does it help a Senator to obstruct things that are motherhood and apple pie such as ethics and lobbying reform, the 9/11 Commission, things desperately needed, first by this town and second by the whole Nation and of course my State.

The answer is very simple. When you are divided, as the other side is on about every issue; when you can't lead, as yesterday's immigration bill showed, the President's No. 1 domestic priority--fewer than a quarter of the Senators on that side voted for it--there is only one answer that can unify; that is, obstruct.

There is one problem with that--there are two. The main problem is: It is wrong for America. It is wrong for America. The second is, it does not work politically. That is why we are seeing the fact that so many on the other side are so worried.

So I wish to salute our majority leader. I will--and I know all the Members on our side will--stand with him side by side. If we have to meet at 2 in the morning, if we have to go into the August recess to get these things done, we will.

The Senate gives the minority the power to lay down the gauntlet of cloture and filibuster. You cannot move unless you get 60 votes. Of course, we do not have them. But we are not powerless. The ability to push through those filibusters--even if it means some inconvenience for the Senators--is our right and I salute our majority leader for telling the other side, and more importantly the American people, we will use that right to move the Nation forward.

So I wish to thank our majority leader for doing this. It is the right thing to do. Everyone is put on notice. A little inconvenience for the Senators to make our country safe, to clean up the unethical swamp in Washington, it sure is worth it. I think the majority leader is absolutely correct. I hope the other side will not continue to obstruct. But if they do, we will get these things done because our country and the American people demand no less.

Mr. President, I would like to make one other point in morning business and talk about, very briefly, on the events of the day yesterday. Yesterday was a very sad day for America, in two instances, when an ideological extreme group set back our country on immigration.

On immigration, we had lots of prattling, lots of scare tactics. As a result, the immigration bill is paralyzed. That

means something. It means that illegal immigrants will continue to flow into America. The number is 12 million; in 5 years, it will be 20 million. We will have done nothing. It will mean our legal immigration policies will be backward, and thousands of people who should be in this country, because of their skills and because we need them, will not be allowed to enter. We will lose competitive advantage. We hear it all the time, companies wanting to locate in America because they love our system but, because they can't get employees, going to Europe or Asia.

On the immigration bill, a great nation is able to deal with its problems. A great nation leads and overcomes narrow, partisan, and sometimes nasty division to move forward. A great nation fails when it becomes paralyzed. I hope, I pray that what happened yesterday on the immigration bill is not portentous of the future. I hope and pray what happened yesterday on the immigration bill does not portend that we will be tied in a knot on every single issue of major import-- education, health care, energy, immigration--and not able to move forward.

The double whammy: Yesterday, the Supreme Court, a new majority--the two new members of the Supreme Court who had impressed upon us their fidelity to stare decisis, to the rule of law, judicial modesty--with one stroke of the pen threw out decades of progress on civil rights in a reading just about everyone who participated in Brown v. Board who is still alive commented on and said that the reading flies in the face of Brown v. Board, despite the fact that the Chief Justice said by allowing segregated schools to continue, he was helping implement Brown v. Board. That is doublespeak, if there ever was. The Nation was set back again.

What is happening? What happened here on the Senate floor yesterday and what happened across the street at the Supreme Court indicates that a narrow ideological minority is setting this country back, paralyzing this country. We live in a vast, changing global world where we need to move forward. We seem paralyzed because of a small ideological minority.

I hope the American people will understand what has happened. I hope the American people will voice their protest. I hope the Supreme Court will come to its senses and not continue on this path of rollback on civil rights. I hope the Senate will come to its senses and come together on a fair immigration bill that deals with our Nation's problems. I pray for the future of this country.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of quorum.

Madam President, I would like to address my comments to my friend from South Carolina. The bottom line is very simple. We have conference committees to move things along, not to slow them down. My colleague from South Carolina has concerns about earmarks. I understand them. They are heartfelt. But it is clear that if we acceded to his request, any single Senator, because of any issue on any bill, could hold up progress completely--on ethics reform, on 9/11, on anything else.

I will tell you my reading. I am from a different part of the country than my colleague, but people want us to get some things done. They don't want us to say: If I don't get it exactly my way on my provision, I am going to hold everything up. That is the consequence of what my friend from South Carolina is saying.

I might feel that the worst part of what happened, the scandals we talked about, is the free trips. I might say: I don't want to trust anything to conference reports. Unless free trips are done exactly as we say here, I want to hold up the bill. One of my colleagues might say that they think the worst thing is flying and the airplanes.

I will in a minute. We would be totally gridlocked. If each of us in this body of 100, each with strong opinions and great talents, were to say: I am not going to let anything move forward unless I get my thing done, period, without change, without discussion, without modification, with the other body, we would be where the public doesn't want us: gridlocked on ethics reform, gridlocked on 9/11, gridlocked on everything else.

I am happy to yield to my friend from South Carolina.

Madam President, reclaiming my time.

Madam President, I understand this passed by a whole lot of votes. That is not the point. There are lots of things that pass by a lot of votes, and then they all have to be worked out in conference committees and in other ways. If each of us insists ``it is my way or I hold things up''--maybe there are ways to improve and strengthen the provisions we pass; maybe there are things other people might add; maybe there will be the kinds of legislative tradeoffs that will make a stronger ethics bill. We all have no way of knowing. But we do know one thing: If what the Senator from South Carolina is doing, by asserting his prerogatives in the Senate, was done by everybody, or even five other Senators, we would absolutely have no ethics reform--no ethics reform--no ethics reform.

I am happy to yield to my colleague from California.

Madam President, the average person would say--because the average American is practical--anyone who insists on only his way or her way is gumming up the works. To get 90 percent or 95 percent of what is a good package, most people would say, yes.

I will say another thing to my colleague.

Madam President, I will be happy to yield when I finish my little colloquy with my friend from California.

My guess is, if you ask the person on the street what is the most egregious abuse in terms of lobbyists and ethics, it is the trips. That is what caught the highlights. It was all the free gifts and all the emoluments and going to London and going here and going there. Most people, if you asked them about earmarks, and they knew what the earmarks were--they would say the bridge from Alaska is a bad thing, and there are a few others that are a bad thing--but my guess is that 95 percent of the people in this body--maybe 100 percent; maybe my friend from South Carolina is proud of the earmarks they have put in and they should be made public early and there should be debate on them--but they, in themselves, are not wrong as the free trips, in themselves, are wrong.

So the bottom line is, if you ask the average citizen, my colleague from California is right, they would say: Move forward because there is a lot in this bill that is important. In fact, the No. 1 abuse we read about might have been trips or emoluments or something like that more than earmarks.

Madam President, I am happy to yield to my colleague form Illinois.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Illinois. That is exactly the point I am making. I would say, the reason we have a Senate, and not a body of one, is because there are different views. Some of the things that my colleague from Illinois read to me are the most objectionable that are on the books now.

I would guess the public is probably closer to my view than the view of the Senator from South Carolina. I would guess what bothered them the most with Abramoff, or with anything else, was all the trips and emoluments and the way the lobbyists sort of insinuated their way into the whole process. There are hundreds of earmarks where there were no lobbyists involved. There were many more earmarks--most earmarks--where the public debate would be supported by this body.

So I would say to my friend from Illinois that is exactly the point. If each of us insists that our little provision must be passed on its own--no debate, no discussion, no moving forward with the general process--we would have no ethics reform.

So despite the good intentions of my colleague from South Carolina, the effect of what he is doing is preventing good, strong, tough ethics reform across the board on issues such as earmarks, but also on issues such as trips and the K Street Project, and everything else from moving forward.

So my colleague from Illinois makes a point that I think is----

Madam President, I continue to yield to my colleague.

Well, Madam President, I have served in this body now for 8 years. I had served in the House for 18 years. I cannot recall a single instance. We do have senses of the Senate; we had senses of the House, which are supposed to direct things. But we have never asked for a guarantee. I, for one, cannot recall someone saying: I am holding up everything until I get my guarantee. That is wrong.

Madam President, I will be happy to yield in a second.

I will tell you, I go to my State. It is a diverse State of 19 million people. It is not South Carolina. It is not Illinois. It is not Nevada. It is not California. It is not Washington State. But I will tell you, the No. 1 thing I hear is: Can't you folks each give in a little bit? Can't you folks each work with one another and get something done?

That is what I hear. Yet the path my friend from South Carolina is taking is exactly the opposite because we will get good earmark reform.