Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I say to the leader, I am going to make about 5 minutes of remarks on it. I have not heard from many other people. I think we could move things along without taking an hour. I do not know if any of my colleagues on the floor wish to speak, but 20 minutes equally divided would--

To the distinguished ranking member of the committee, I would gratefully appreciate 5 minutes.

I thank Senator Specter and the majority leader for giving me this time.

Mr. President, my part of the division of this amendment, simply stated, will cut the path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

I think most people will recognize that citizenship is the most precious gift America can provide. There are many of us who believe it should not serve as a reward to those who broke the law to enter or remain in this country. The path to citizenship is at the heart of the amnesty criticism of this bill, which we are hearing very loudly in my State and across the Nation. I believe cutting this path cuts out the most severe complaint against this bill.

I supported the Vitter amendment to strike the entire amnesty proposal for 12 million illegal aliens in the country, and that amendment was rejected. Perhaps it was too broad. So my division of the current amendment targets the most controversial aspect of the proposal: the award of citizenship to those 12 million illegal aliens who essentially will stay here--maybe take a 1-day trip--enjoy the benefits of residence, and then can become citizens without having to go through the process everyone else seeking to become a citizen has to go through, which is applying in their home country, and waiting for their time to arrive. Whatever we end up doing for those 12 million illegal aliens, it does not, in my view, require the further step of granting citizenship.

Those 12 million illegal aliens came to this country to work--to work--without expectation of becoming citizens. We ought to understand that. They came here to work, not to become citizens. Now, more legal aliens will come to this country on a temporary basis to work without the expectation of citizenship. There is no need to grant these people the gift of citizenship when they came here to meet their economic needs. The bill, as we know, puts the 12 million illegal immigrants who comply with its terms on the path to citizenship. Illegal immigrants who pay a fine and pass a security check, learn English, touch back to their home country, and show employment can become legalized under the new Z visa program.

After 8 years, formerly illegal immigrants, now legalized with Z visas, may apply for legalized permanent residence, otherwise known as a green card. As most of us already know, under existing law, once you have had a green card for a certain number of years, you can apply for and receive citizenship.

My division simply will cut off that path, automatically invoked once a green card is bestowed, by preventing those formerly illegal immigrants with Z visas from obtaining green card status and therefore citizenship.

Specifically, my portion of the amendment would strike the contents of section 602 on earned adjustment for Z status aliens, replacing it with a prohibition on issuing an immigrant visa to Z nonimmigrants, which is currently in the bill, and a prohibition on adjusting a Z nonimmigrant to legalized permanent residency, or so-called green card holders.

This proposal of mine would not change any of the bill's requirements to obtain and keep a Z visa, such as a clean criminal record, progressively better English competency, or continued employment. Nor does my proposal change any of the rights afforded to Z visa holders, including work, residency, and travel. Z visa holders would remain in that status as long as they chose. Alternatively--and this is an alternative--Z visa holders could abandon their status, return to their home country and, if they choose, pursue legalized permanent residency and citizenship from outside the country, as any other foreign citizen could.

As I discussed above, I do personally support granting the rights I enumerated for Z visa holders. I supported the Vitter amendment to strip all the Z program provisions. But the Senate had its vote on all of those provisions and we lost. This amendment is the next best thing.

Our immigration system is broken and must be fixed. I support a strong emphasis on border security and enforcing the immigration laws, but we should not hold border security hostage to amnesty. I voted before and

will continue to vote to appropriate more money for funding for border fencing, detention facilities, and border agents. I urge my fellow Senators to support those ways to strengthen and protect our country and our security, but reject rewarding illegal immigrants with undeserved citizenship.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my colleague from Massachusetts made a very powerful statement on behalf of those who came here, but he kind of forgot an important distinction. There are those who come here legally and those who come here illegally. We are talking about the illegals. With the argument so forcefully and persuasively made by my colleague from Massachusetts, if you took that argument to its end result, then there should not be immigration laws. We should not have a process for going for citizenship because anybody who wanted to come in could.

We have changed those laws. We have provided laws, and the people we are talking about have come here illegally to work. If they wanted to become citizens, there is a process. If they join the military, I strongly believe they should become citizens.

But if they come illegally just to work, then they have not earned citizenship like all of the others do, like my ancestors and the ancestors of almost every Member of this body. We are all immigrants, but we did not come here illegally and expect to get citizenship. Therefore, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues, if you believe there is a difference between people who come legally and people who come illegally, to support the Bond division or proposal, vote against the motion to table.

Madam President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 800, the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act or card-check bill. As Americans, we cast secret ballots when we vote for the President, Congress, Governors, mayors, and city council members. Yet this bill would take away that essential right within the workplace.

It reminds me of the story from my home country, Audrain County, Missouri, often called the ``heart of little Dixie'' in Missouri, because it was settled by Democrats. The folklore has it that in the 1864 election, when President Lincoln was running for reelection and everybody had to stand up on the courthouse steps and announce for whom they were voting, one brave or foolhardy soul got up and said he wanted to cast a vote for Abraham Lincoln. To show you how kind and generous and hospitable the people of Audrain County were, they gave him a full 24 hours to get out of town. While I cannot document that story with the names of the specific individuals involved, that is an example of why a secret ballot is important.

A secret ballot allows people to exercise a free choice without fear of coercion from either side, either management or fellow workers who support management or fellow workers who support a union and union organizers.

Rather than enhancing and enabling secret ballots within the workplace, this bill would eliminate that choice. Under the so-called card-check bill, an employer would no longer carry the right to demand a secret ballot election in order to certify a union as the employee's bargaining unit. The reauthorization of the National Labor Relations Act of 1947, the original benchmark for secret ballot union elections, was enacted to safeguard the rights of workers and the companies they worked for, to promote collective bargaining, and to restrain certain private sector labor and management practices, which could pose a threat to the general welfare of workers, to business, and to our Nation's economy.

Now, as we all know, NLRA allows for an exception to the rule of a secret ballot election. If an employer is willing to accept union authorization cards that have been signed from a majority of the employees represented, the organized union becomes the bargaining unit for that specific group of workers.

Therefore, as you see under existing law, there are exceptions which allow for authorization cards to be accepted. But to remove completely the ability of workers to have a confidential and private vote on whether they choose to become a part of a union is utterly objectionable and goes against all of the principles we hold so dear in this democracy.

I feel that this ill-advised legislation will replace a federally supervised secret ballot election process with a system that would open the door for harassment, intimidation, coercion, forgery, and fraud. If enacted, this bill would permit union organizers to gain signatures from workers wherever they feel free to do so. Therefore, as a result, a worker could see an organizer choose to show up at the place where he or she eats, at their residence, or at a family outing just to obtain a signature for representation.

Might I say also my constituents, who are small businesses, who know their employees on a first-name basis, are violently opposed to this kind of working operation. The small businesses are the dynamic engine that keeps this economy growing. They are creating the jobs, they are the ones that grow. If they thought they could have a union imposed upon them by card check, without going through a secret ballot, it would kill the ability of those small businesses to grow and hire more workers.

In fiscal year 2005, the National Labor Relations Board conducted 2,745 elections. It is interesting to note that 1,504 secret ballot elections were won by organized labor. Therefore, the total percentage of elections won by labor unions was 55 percent.

In 2004, organized unions won 51 percent out of 2,826 total elections conducted that year. During the Clinton administration in 1994, organized labor won only 44 percent of the total secret ballot elections.

According to a polling report conducted in January of this year, out of

the many individuals who were asked whether they would prefer an authorization card over secret ballot, 89 percent of those polled overwhelmingly chose the secret ballot.

As you see from the numbers, employees who have a real free choice of confidentially deciding whether to become part of the union have freely been able to employ their given right for union representation if they choose. In the last few years, under the secret ballot election, a majority of workers have decided to join a union. If a majority of prospective union employees does not wish to join, then they have a right, by secret ballot, to decline.

If labor unions are continuously increasing their election win margin each fiscal year, why prefer to use a system that threatens the protective rights of the confidential vote for each employee? Why not leave the ultimate decision to the employees where support for the secret ballot continues to remain strong?

The answer to that question may be in the fact that while secret ballot elections recently produced a victory of 55 percent in 2005, it does not match the success of a 90-percent win rate that the card-check system produces.

Many small businesses back home in Missouri have come to me and expressed concern with this bill, from machinists to mechanics to food distributors, and many other small companies. They have all voiced their resistance, distrust, and strong opposition to this bill.

We must understand that over 93 percent of our Nation's businesses have fewer than 100 employees. This bill would place a heavy burden on the livelihood of these small businesses, since they are the least likely to have experience in labor negotiations or have experienced legal counsel to represent them. They have to work on a first-name basis with their employees. They know what their challenges are. They know who they are, and they are in the best position to be able to help their workers. But they don't want to have the threat of a nonsecret ballot imposing a union on them.

Passage of the bill will mean that unions could unfairly target considerably smaller businesses, more than before, given that the amount of resources necessary to organize a business would be significantly less. Prohibiting a secret ballot for the purposes of assisting organized labor with efforts to bolster membership is not the remedy needed to ensure every worker's right to a safe, confidential, union election, where their God-given rights to a secret ballot, which we hold dear in the United States, would be denied.

I urge my colleagues not to permit this bill to go forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, as a Member of the Senate who has traveled every year to Southeast Asia and met frequently with government leaders from that region when they visited the United States, I believe America has great interests in that region, and that we need to pay more attention here in Washington, DC and across the Nation, to our allies and partners in Southeast Asia.

This region, economically, politically, strategically important, it is our 5th largest in total volume trading partner. Serving as a cornerstone to SE Asia and the lynchpin to its stability, prosperity and security lie in Indonesia.

When I have asked leaders from all over Southeast Asia how they are doing, they always include a reference to Indonesia. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country and as a democracy, that makes it the largest Muslim democracy as well.

On the darker side, it is also a key country in what many in the intelligence community, and I agree, is the second front in the war on terror that we confront. It is home to the Islamist terrorist group, Jemah Islamiya, which next to al-Qaeda, is one of the greatest threats to American security and peace in the world.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has been executing an ambitious agenda for anti-corruption, political and economic reform. He represents Indonesia's best hope for continuing down a path towards stability, prosperity, pluralism, democracy and security. Such a path is not only in our own economic interests, but is also essential to control the terrorist threat and the reach of al-Qaeada and Jemah Islamiah in Southeast Asia.

Since the fall of President Suharto, the Indonesian people have elected three new presidents, impeached one, and experienced several peaceful transfers of power. They have held direct elections of a president. They have amended their constitution in order to

be more democratic and transparent. They have given the judicial branch independent administrative and financial authority. They continue to reform their military in accordance with democratic, civilian- controlled principles.

They have recently provided a battalion to support the UNIFIL forces in Lebanon; and Indonesia was recently cited by Freedom House as Southeast Asia's only truly ``free'' nation.

But despite all the progress being made, we in Congress seem to continue to look for every transgression to put our relationship on hold and move it backwards.

The truth is that as a country, Indonesia has made truly remarkable progress in a very short period of time. As such, they deserve continued support and engagement, not restrictions and retractions.

We should recognize the accomplishments of the Indonesian people and encourage them in their pursuit of a successful transformation to a democratic nation.

This is why I, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Inouye, am proud to introduce a resolution recognizing Indonesia's accomplishments and the increasingly mutually beneficial relationship between Indonesia and the U.S.

As an archipelago of over 200 million people, if Indonesia were superimposed over the top of the United States, it would span from Florida to Alaska. The size of Indonesia and the fact that they have 17,000 islands at low water, 13,000 at high tide, presents a tremendous challenge in defending its borders and dealing with potential terrorist activities on its distant islands or remote jungles.

The Indonesian armed forces are a necessary partner in this battle. When Jemah Islamiah bombed the Bali nightclub in 2002, killing 202 people, Indonesia's military, policing and intelligence capabilities were in poor condition. Of late however, Indonesia's security forces have ``gained the upper hand,'' according to the Economist, June 16th, 2007 with the capture and arrest of some of Jemah Islamiah's top commanders.

Leadimg the fight against terror is Indonesia's new police unit 88, which was set up with the help of American and Australian Security forces. Among the terrorists captured was Abu Dujana, one of Indonesia's most wanted terrorists. Dujana apparently took over as military leader of JI when their former leader and bomb maker, Azahari Husin, was in 2005 killed and had earned the dubious honor of being named the most wanted terrorist in the country. And over the last 12 months, the Indonesians have captured or killed 47 terrorists, including several key leaders.

The article also went on to say. . . .

No large-scale attacks have taken place since 2005. With

the help of their Australian and American counterparts,

Indonesia's national police have greatly improved their

tracking of militants and have rounded up some of JI's top

leaders.

In the recent past, there have been various forms of restrictions on our relations with the Indonesian military in light of terrible abuses that were committed by the TNI in East Timor. However, our reinstatement of military relations and the restoration of International Military Education & Training or IMET, has resulted in continued positive trends.

It is interesting to note that the current President, when he was a military leader, was in the last class of IMET leaders from Indonesia to come to the United States. He, in his own person, demonstrates the appreciation of civilian control. Some in this body and the other body want to impose new restriction to hinder, not help, the productive influence our military can and has had on the TNI.

We must expand and continue to improve our relations with the TNI, not restrict and retract. IMET provides for adherence to the Code of Military Justice, civilian of the military, respect for human rights, and proper treatment of population principles that should be instilled in military forces.

Further, IMET establishes important relationships and alliances among our military leaders and commanders of friendly foreign forces. It assures they understand how to conduct military or relief operations together. and, it keeps the U.S. engaged in a region where China is increasingly, extending its influence. When I visited the North Western province of Ache, right after the Tsunami, the fact that their military had not trained with us caused us great military operational difficulties.

Some in Congress apparently want to reimpose sanctions on IMET participation because of the past and perceived military abuses, but as Walter Lohman, Director of Asian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, has said:

accountability for past human rights abuses and the proper

role of the militia are legitimate. But the United States

needs to get to a point where it addresses these concerns

with the same respect it affords other democratic partners,

like the Europeans or the Japanese

Many leaders in that region have told me, privately, they believe U.S. active engagement and association with their countries is essential to stop China from extending hegemony over the region. Whether China is viewed as a threat or an opportunity, they are actively courting their neighbors in SE Asia; They are sending official trade missions, signing trade agreements and investing their large reserves in securing sources of energy and natural resources. Make no mistake about it, they are aggressively building up a military force navy capable of extending beyond the straits of Taiwan.

The opportunities and the challenges related to China seeking to extend its influence over Southeast Asia should concern us both economically and militarily. States of Southeast Asia, notably Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia, control the important Malacca Straits; Straits through which one quarter of all the shipping in the world passes and one half of the petroleum products carried by ocean- going vessels pass.

Beyond those interests, it remains my thesis that we should pay attention to Southeast Asia--particularly Indonesia--as the second front in the war on terrorism.

Indondsia represents the best hope for fostering a moderate Islam that recognizes the true peaceful nature of that religion in opposition to the radical terrorist-inspiring versions of Islam.

With Southeast Asia and its large Muslim population, we have an opportunity through constructive forms of engagement; to ensure they become a solid foundation for peace, security and economic prosperity in this critical part of the world. Whether it is more peace corps volunteers, education initiatives, leadership exchanges, IMET or sending Navy ships such as the USS Mercy and USS Peleliu on humanitarian missions to the region.

We can do it without the need for massive military actions such as those we have undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq to root out the terrorists and in those cases, the governments that harbored them. In other words, more sandals on the ground now, will prevent having to put boots on the ground in future.

I urge my colleagues to support countries like Indonesia in their path towards peace, democracy and pluralism, as opposed to restricting and pushing them towards more radical, terrorist-inspiring versions of Islam.

I ask or behalf of Senator Inouye and myself that the resolution be sent to the desk and ask that it be referred appropriately.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the articles from the June 16th Economist and from Walter Lohman of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Bunning coal to liquid fuel amendment. This was an amendment cosponsored and championed by our dear late friend, Senator Craig Thomas. If we could adopt this amendment and pass it into law, I think it would be a fitting tribute to the memory of this very fine servant of the people of Wyoming and of the United States.

We have plenty of Members of the Senate who would like to reduce our involvement in the Middle East. Maybe they supported our gulf and Iraq wars; maybe they did not, but they would sure like us to reduce our current involvement, and they certainly would like us not to have to go over there every time there is trouble. Count me in as one of that broader group.

There is another group of Senators, and I would be included in those as well, that would like us to improve the environment by reducing greenhouse gases. They support reducing the lifecycle greenhouse gases emitted during the production of fuels. Indeed, we are considering provisions to require biofuels produce 20 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gases during their production.

So I ask those Senators--all of you who support reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, all of you who support requiring fuels to produce less greenhouse gases--please support the Bunning- Domenici coal to liquid fuel amendment that will do both.

Domestically produced fuel made from coal will reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Every barrel of oil we produce from America is a barrel of oil we do not need to import from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq or Venezuela. Every barrel of oil we produce from America will reduce our need by that much to intervene in local Middle Eastern disputes.

Domestically produced fuel made from coal will improve the environment. Coal to liquid fuel, with its sequestration of pollutants, will be lower in acid rain-causing sulfur and soot-producing particulate matter. The Bunning amendment will also cut greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline production by mandating 20 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. No coal to liquid plant will receive a cent of Government money unless it can meet this greenhouse gas reduction requirement.

Domestically produced fuel from coal will improve our health. Too many children and elderly suffer from asthma, an acute condition caused by air pollution. Coal to liquid fuel is lower in ozone-causing nitrogen oxides, soot-producing particulate matter, as I mentioned, and toxic emissions from volatile organic compounds.

Domestically produced fuel made from coal will improve the performance of our military. Coal to liquid fuel provides significant performance advantages for military jets and aircraft. The Air Force is most interested in signing long-term supply contracts that will enable them to provide a market for the clean coal to liquid fuel which is envisioned in this amendment. CTL fuel burns at a lower temperature, burns cleaner, and performs better at both lower and higher temperatures. That is good for our war fighters who need every advantage they can get.

Domestically produced fuel made from coal is good for our existing infrastructure. Coal to liquid fuel can go right into our existing pipelines, gas tanks, and engines without any cause of problems. We will not need new pipelines, new storage or new pumps as with biofuels.

Domestically produced fuel made from coal is also good for consumers. Coal to liquids offer long-term supply guarantees without the fear of supply shocks from external forces in other countries. Do you ever wonder why gas prices jump up every time some Middle Eastern radical shoots off a rocket in his neighbor's territory? That would not happen to the fuel we are producing from coal to liquids.

Domestically produced fuel made from coal is also good for taxpayers. Coal to liquids offers the ability to lock in long-term price cut guarantees. I think all of us realize that Southwest Airlines used this long-term fuel supply hedging to save billions of dollars and avoid bankruptcy. Other airlines lost millions and fell into bankruptcy paying for high-priced fuel on the spot market. At the same time, Southwest produced profits in part from the savings from their long- term contracts to buy fuel. We can use this same strategy to benefit all Americans with coal to liquids and specifically by supplying that fuel to the Air Force and other Government users. I would hope the other users of fuel would realize the advantage, but we can do something now to start that market and to assure that technology goes into production.

So I urge my colleagues to give a hard look to the Bunning-Domenici coal to liquid fuel standard amendment. I would say, I would add Craig Thomas's name to that list as well. Sponsors have trimmed back the amendment to require more modest and realistic amounts of CTL fuel. Sponsors have also included the same 20-percent lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction mandate and a requirement for coal to liquid plants to operate with technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions.

We can use the carbon dioxide, so captured, to pump into previously depleted oil wells to generate more production or we can pump it into substructures, geological formations, which will capture and keep that CO2 sequestered.

I urge my colleagues to support the Bunning-Domenici amendment. Our future in terms of energy independence, our future in terms of a cleaner environment depends on it.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, recently I returned from Iraq where I visited Tikrit, Baghdad, Bamadi, and Balad with three of my congressional colleagues. We had the opportunity to meet with the commanding officers and troops on each location. On the floor of the Senate I spoke to you about witnessing firsthand some of the progress being made. Since I have seen so little coverage of that progress, I think progress bears repeating.

The new plan, the counterinsurgency plan, is showing initial signs of progress. Violence in al-Qaim, Haditha, Hit, Ramadi, and Falluja has dramatically decreased due to local leaders now siding with coalition forces pursuing al-Qaida in Iraq.

In Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi security forces are clearing and holding some of the most dangerous areas, and sectarian violence has decreased.

I was especially impressed with the successes in Ramadi, where only a few months ago some were claiming it lost forever, and al-Qaida said it was going to establish its headquarters there. In April, attacks in Ramadi decreased by 74 percent. All 23 tribal areas in Ramadi are cooperating with U.S. forces to fight al-Qaida militants, 263 weapons caches were discovered in the preceding 3 months, and Iraqis are volunteering by the thousands to join the Army and local police force.

I am disappointed this progress has not been widely covered by the media in the United States. In fact, the only TV coverage I have seen was a 60-second clip by Nick Johnson of CNN, who did an excellent job. I see the LA Times had a story, ``Iraqi Tribal Chiefs Forming an Anti- Insurgent Party.''

The frustration at the failure of our media to call the successes what they were is very high. Earlier last week, my office received an e-mail from one of our troops serving in Iraq. He detailed an exciting success story, the establishment of a new joint command precinct for Iraqi police, Iraqi Army and Marines, the first such precinct headquarters to be established in Falluja. His e-mail detailed what a success the operation had been. Almost 200 Iraqis volunteered for police recruitment, hundreds more received outpatient medical care, damage claims were settled, and all present received food and oil rations. And the Iraqis seemed to be very pleased to be cooperating with the United States.

But the enemy, being very clever, working to thwart any and all progress, reacted to this success story by sending in some poor suicide bomber. Thanks to aggressive patrolling efforts by Iraqi forces, the bomber was forced to detonate his vest almost half a mile away when he was halted by police. He caused superficial wounds to one Iraqi civilian and killed himself. No one else was injured, no other damage caused. In the aftermath of the incident the precinct signed up an additional 75 recruits for police service.

As this American warrior wrote to us:

This bomber failed. He failed to kill innocents and he

failed to deter the progress of standing up Iraqi police.

But to his frustration there was no coverage of this good news story. Indeed, the media, the U.S. media totally misreported the story. A number of media outlets carried these headlines. From the Baltimore Sun, ``Attack on Iraq Police, At Least 20 Dead.''

From the Los Angeles Times, ``Twenty Iraqis Die in Suicide Attacks.''

Our correspondent wrote that he was shocked. He checked it out every way he could, but it appears to have been a false report. The headlines refer to the failed attack but depicted a dramatically different outcome. There has been no apparent retraction, so thousands upon thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands who saw the headline assumed yet another tragic incident occurred in Falluja and just lumped that in with all the other bad news that makes up a grim picture of Iraq. And you see why our men and women fighting over there are frustrated.

The following morning our correspondent found himself in another situation. He learned a combined Iraqi Army police and U.S. Marine patrol in Falluja encountered a small band of insurgents at a suicide vehicle factory. The police engaged the enemy, killing four of them, and the Iraqi Army and Marines trapped additional escaping insurgents, killing three more. Two large trucks laden with explosives and rigged to be suicide vehicles were found.

This was a best case scenario: enemy killed in his tracks, weapon was discovered before it caused any harm, there were no civilian casualties whatsoever, and U.S. demolition forces blew up the two suicide vehicles. Instead of celebrating this success, the e-mail noted--the writer noted it was disappointing to read a headline, ``Children Killed.''

According to the story, the U.S. tank fired a high-explosive round at insurgents placing an IED in Fallujah yesterday, killing three Iraqi children. The insurgents got away. To anyone watching the news that day, it would seem the war in Iraq is being lost and the terrorists are winning. While there has been significant progress in Iraq, there is no doubt we are losing the war of information. I couldn't have said it better than the young man who wrote my office in frustration, who said:

What incredible economy of effort the enemy is afforded

when U.S. media is their megaphone. Why spend precious

resources on developing your own propaganda machine when you

can make your opponent's own news outlets scream your message

louder than you ever hoped to do independently.

The young man ended his e-mail by saying the incidents he detailed were very important to him and his comrades who were serving in Iraq. Typical of our brave warfighters, the young man stressed that he and his fellow soldiers will continue to fight the fight. He acknowledged there will be mistakes, setbacks, and casualties that the world will hear about, but there will also be successes, victories over enemy combatants, progress, stability, and growth in the new Iraq, but, tragically, it appears no one is going to hear about that in our media since it has been increasingly clear that our media is unwilling or able to report anything except bloody headlines and bad news. The U.S. Government has a responsibility to do a better job of public diplomacy, strategic influence getting our story out.

The U.S. military has made a real difference in Iraqi communities. There are examples of good stories, such as the local new precinct joint command headquarters. But somehow we are not doing an adequate job of spreading the news. Let me cite an example from today's Washington Post page A11: ``Tribal Coalition In Anbar Said To Be Crumbling.'' Well, I have missed it, perhaps, if I saw anything in the Washington Post about the coalition. About 23 sheiks in the tribal areas are cooperating with the United States. But when you read the story a little farther, you see the headline is about one Sunni leader who has great concern about another Sunni leader, and calls him a ``traitor.'' Unfortunately, this happens to go on frequently among tribes.

When you read farther down in the story, we finally interview General Petraeus. General Petraeus said: I think they have done this for their lives. This is not just a business deal that they have struck; when you oppose al-Qaida, you are putting it all on the line. This is not an economic issue.

That was the message from our commander. He did not get the headline. There was another member of the council who said that: The salvation is like one family. There are no problems between us and the members.

U.S. military officials said virtually everyone in Anbar belongs to a tribe and that rather than ignore that fact, they were trying to exploit it.

There is an overlay of government structure and tribal

structure, and the two, when they work well, mesh and, in a

sense, complement each other in Anbar.

I was able to see an article, a TV story by Ollie North this past Sunday, a war story. He was talking about the good old days in World War II. If there was anything good about the old days in World War II, Hollywood and the media were on the same side as our troops. What a wonderful vestige of the old times.

I thought this was a great opportunity to see what had happened in the past. The war of ideas and public opinion is not just critical in Iraq, it is critical in the broad war on terror.

As we know from reading the statements of Ayman al-Zawahari, the No. 2 in command, he knows they cannot win the war militarily; they can win it only by influencing public opinion in the United States. Unfortunately, recent congressional action indicates the terrorists may not be far off base. Resolutions to withdraw from Iraq, delaying funding for the troops, telling the Sunni terror cells and the Shia militias that America's political will is wavering--the supporters of these resolutions are sending a message: Hang on, the United States will not have the political will to outlast them. Our men and women in uniform are right to be disheartened that we have not only the media but some Members of Congress who are unduly influenced by our enemy. It is critical that we not fall into this trap set by al-Qaida and the

other Islamic terrorists who wish to defeat us. It is about time we realize our brave men and women in Iraq are putting their lives on the line, they are under fire every day. They are fighting a battle and they are making progress in the global war on terror. They need the funds for equipment, which we finally passed to them, but they also deserve our moral support and support in winning the hearts and minds not only of the United States but of the world.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, today we pay tribute to Senator Craig Thomas, whom we unfortunately lost to cancer last night.

Our thoughts, prayers, and sympathy go out to his wife Susan and their children during this difficult time.

I had the opportunity to work closely with Senator Thomas on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

He was a leader in the energy, agriculture, water resources and agricultural issues that affected his State.

I highly respected his low-key, behind-the-scenes manner of getting things done.

He was forward looking: he believed that ``clean technologies'' were a solution both to environmental pollution and to our dependence on foreign oil.

On the Finance Committee, he was a dependable vote for fiscal sanity, tax simplification and cutting spending.

It is said around here that there are ``work horses'' and ``show horses.'' By that measure Senator Thomas was certainly a work horse. He did not aggressively seek the limelight. Instead he worked quietly and diligently, with integrity, to get things done for Wyoming.

We will miss his knowledge, competence, and his friendship.

Mr. President, tomorrow at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Elsie the Cow will be present to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Borden Cheese.

Borden Cheese started in 1857, when Gail Borden began selling his patented condensed milk that allowed milk to last much longer than the 3 days it would currently hold in its natural state. This condensed milk was used in large ration amounts by the Union Army during the Civil War. Gail Borden's modernization of dairy practices in the ``Dairyman's Ten Commandments'' created a model for modern health department regulations.

Elsie the Cow entered the picture for Borden almost 90 years ago. Not only has she represented the face of Borden, but she also toured the Nation to support purchasing U.S. war bonds during World War II. Her support sold $10 million in war bonds.

Today, Borden is a member of Missouri-based Dairy Farmers of America, a 22,000-member farm cooperative. I am pleased to honor Borden and Elsie on their important anniversary.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak

briefly. I have proposed an amendment which I believe is very important to this bill to cut the automatic path to citizenship. It is filed at the desk, and I will call it up later.

Citizenship is the most sacred gift Americans can provide. It should not serve as a reward to those who broke the law to enter or remain in this country. The path to citizenship is at the heart of the amnesty criticism of this bill. Cutting this path cuts out the most severe complaint about this bill.

I supported the Vitter amendment yesterday to strike the entire program proposed to deal with 12 million illegal aliens in the country. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected. So today I propose a much more targeted, focused amendment to strike the controversial aspect of the proposal to give the award of citizenship to those 12 million illegal aliens.

Whatever we end up doing with those 12 million illegal aliens, it does not require the further step of giving them a path to citizenship ahead of others. Those 12 million illegal aliens came to this country to work without the expectation of becoming citizens. More illegal aliens will come to this country on a temporary basis to work without expectation of citizenship. There is no need to grant these people the gift of citizenship.

Specifically, my amendment will strike the contents of section 602 on earned adjustment of Z status aliens, replacing it with a prohibition on issuing an immigrant visa to Z nonimmigrants which is currently in the bill and a prohibition of adjusting a Z nonimmigrant to legalize permanent resident or so-called green card holder.

In this way, the path to citizenship is cut off. I urge the Senate to call up and adopt this amendment. I believe it will enable other goals in the bill to be accomplished without giving the amnesty path to citizenship.

I yield the floor and I thank my colleagues.

Madam President, in April, Ted Stevens became the longest serving Republican Member of the United States Senate in our country's 230-year history. I join my colleagues in congratulating the Senator and thanking him for his many years of service and our friendship.

Much has already been said about Senator Stevens' sometimes grouchy and intimidating demeanor. But if we look past the hulk ties, the scowling countenance, the vigorous defense of any and all attacks on Alaskan priorities, and the cowed staff who fear that they have fallen on the wrong side of our esteemed senior Senator, we see another, more compassionate side.

When I first arrived in Washington, DC, in 1987, my son was entering first grade at the same time as Ted's beloved daughter. Sam and Lily became fast friends, and so did their parents.

Ted and Catherine were very close friends of ours and like godparents to Sam. Anyone who knows Ted well

knows how important his family is and the high value he places on his children and their friends. He is truly a most kind, gentle, and readily approachable father, uncle, and godfather.

His concern about others' children and family members is equally heartfelt. As he exercises his many leadership roles, Senator Stevens is always willing to take our family obligations into account. He realizes how important it is to schedule time for our families in the chaotic, hectic life we lead in the United States Senate.

In addition to the close personal friendship we have enjoyed with the Stevens family, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Chairman Stevens as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

As chairman, Ted is solicitous of the concerns of even his most junior members. He is also a devoted friend of his partner--sometimes ranking member and sometimes chairman--Senator Dan Inouye.

While there is never any doubt that he and Senator Inouye control the Defense Appropriations call, Senator Stevens is sensitive and receptive to the needs of other Members to the greatest extent possible.

He is a very passionate defender of the Appropriations Committee, its prerogatives, and its responsibilities. Woe unto the person who attacks the appropriations process or the work that he does. One soon learns that such a position is not one to be taken lightly. One had better be prepared for a bruising fight.

As President pro tempore, he was a faithful and dedicated leader of the Senate. Now that he is--temporarily--out of that position, he continues a close working relationship with his good friend and colleague Senator Robert C. Byrd, the current President pro tem.

It is, indeed, an honor to have him as our leading senior Republican in the Senate.

The Senator's influence extends far beyond the Senate to Alaska, the Nation and the world.

Many of the accomplishments of the Senate over the last 4 decades bear the mark of Ted Stevens. He has been tireless in his leadership to secure a strong military--and has funded a strong personnel system, the most needed, up-to-date equipment and the most promising research. The current strength and superiority of the U.S. Armed Forces is due in no small part to Senator Stevens.

He has also been a leader in the natural resources, transportation issues, and climate change issues important to all of America but that particularly affect his home state.

Ted is passionate about Alaska--its natural beauty, its people, its needs and its fishing. Many of us have enjoyed traveling to Alaska with Senator Stevens and discovering first-hand the treasures it has to offer.

The many roads, parks and buildings named for him are but a hint of all he has done for the State. His contributions are extensive and lasting, from improving the infrastructure to safeguarding the wildlife and natural resources Alaska has in abundance.

Alaskans rightly dubbed the Senator the ``Alaska of the Twentieth Century.'' I am sure Senator Stevens would remind us that he is not done yet. Odds are he is a favorite to be ``Alaskan of the Twenty-first Century'' as well.

It has been a tremendous honor and privilege to serve with Ted Stevens. I look forward to many more years of working together.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Teresa Kirkeeng-Kincaid, a remarkable civil servant who dedicated her entire career to making her community, the Upper Mississippi River Region and our Nation a better place. Teresa passed away last week at the young age of 48, after a courageous battle against cancer. Her legacy, however, will continue long into the future. Teresa dedicated her entire professional life to working for the Federal Government. Teresa joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a civil engineer with the Rock Island District in 1981, and continued with the Corps for 26 years. In that time, she served in many roles, including assistant chief of the planning, program and project management division.

During her two and a half decades of service, Teresa earned a reputation on the Upper Mississippi Region and across the Nation as a person of great dedication and integrity. She played a leadership role in important projects including formulating navigation, flood damage, and ecosystem restoration projects throughout the entire Upper Mississippi River basin. She was the ``go to person'' throughout the Corps of Engineers on numerous planning issues. The team she led reestablished the Corps' Planning Associates program to train future planners for the Corps, a legacy that will last for many decades.

I had the occasion to meet Teresa several times, and know the very high regard in which she was held by her coworkers, her countless friends, and her loving family. She will be missed.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Monroe City, MO, on the 150th Anniversary of its founding.

Monroe City has had a long and proud history. The city was founded on July 4, 1857, by E.B. Talcott and John Duff at a picnic where town lots were sold. In 1869 Monroe City became an incorporated town, owing its existence to the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad and the Wabash Railroad. Due to the drive of the community's many entrepreneurs Monroe City enjoyed continued economic, agricultural, and structural growth.

In the early 1870s an educational system was created with both public and parochial schools. In 1918, a Carnegie Library was built that is still owned and supported by the city of Monroe City.

Throughout its 150-year history, Monroe City has continued to flourish and has striven to maintain its concern for, and involvement in, the lives of its citizens. Members of this community have often assumed leadership positions in the community through participation in fire, police, and administration departments, as well as with their work with a variety of civic and church groups.

I am pleased to join with the State of Missouri in congratulating Monroe City on this important milestone and wishing them continued growth and success for the next 150 years.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise following my good friend from Montana, with whom I served last year as the subcommittee leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We worked in a bipartisan way, and I appreciate that working relationship this year again. The EPW has worked on a bipartisan basis on this very important bill, and we have shown it by the number of people who signed letters asking that they move the bill. We have seen it in the vote on cloture. I thank the leadership in this body, particularly Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe.

This bill before us today and next week, the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, is long overdue and badly needed. As has already been said, it authorizes projects under the jurisdiction----

Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. President, I appreciate the kind comments of my friend from Montana. I wish there were more issues on which we could work so closely, but this one I view as a vital investment in our Nation's future. This is something we ought to be able to come together on as Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and say we need to build for the future.

As my colleague from Montana has said, the programs administered by the Corps are of tremendous value to the entire Nation. They provide drinking water, electric power production, river transportation, recreation, flood protection, environmental protection and restoration, and emergency response.

Few agencies in the Federal Government touch as many citizens as the Corps does. The Corps provides one-quarter of our Nation's total hydropower output. If you are looking for pollution-free power, it is hydropower. The Corps operates 463 lake recreation areas; moves 630 million tons of cargo, valued at over $73 billion annually through our inland system; manages over 12 million acres of land and water; provides 3 trillion gallons of water for use by local communities and businesses; and has prevented an estimated $706 billion in flood damage within the past 25 years with an investment one-seventh of that value. During the 1993 flood alone, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was prevented by flood control facilities in place at that time.

Regrettably, I must tell my colleagues that as we debate this bill on the floor, a flood is currently striking Missouri. I talked with a top Corps official from Missouri yesterday, who said the flood and its impact now may be as great as the disaster of the 1993 floods. I will be going there tomorrow to survey the damage. Floods are a fact of nature, and a good levee system can reduce the damage.

The WRDA bill is a bipartisan bill traditionally produced by Congress every 2 years. As a matter of fact, you could say this is the 2002 WRDA bill about 5 years late. Better late than never.

The bill makes possible all of America's major flood control projects, coastal protection, environmental protection and restoration, transportation and recreation on our major waterways.

Despite its importance, however, we have not passed a WRDA bill since 2000. The longer we wait, the more unmet needs pile up and the more complicated the demands upon the bill become. I think the public voice is loud, clear, and spoken often regarding how they feel about our long overdue and much-needed WRDA legislation.

We believe the bill before the Senate is a good one, balancing the needs of our States for environmental restoration of key waterways and for navigation projects that create economic growth and keep our economy going.

The bill before us will create jobs, spur economic development and trade competitiveness, and improve the environment. It is financially responsible. To say it is widely supported is an understatement. It passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year by a voice vote and, in the 109th Congress, 80 colleagues signed a letter urging floor action.

A few weeks ago, the House cleared a companion bill with a vote of 394 to 25, and in the 109th Congress, they passed it with 406 votes. Last year, we merely ran out of time in conference. That is why I am glad the bill was passed out of committee and brought to the floor in a timely manner. We cannot afford to let the time run out on the bill in this Congress.

In the last 20 years, environmental protection has become a primary Corps mission. Our water resources perform a variety of functions simultaneously. They can provide transportation and protection from floods and protect habitat for many species.

Similarly, when it comes to Corps projects, navigational and flood control projects can and should be environmentally sound. Environmental restoration can help prevent or minimize flooding during the next major storm.

The Corps is leading some of the world's largest ecosystem restoration projects. The commanding feature of this bill is its landmark environmental and ecosystem restoration authorities. More than half the bill consists of authorization for environmental restoration projects.

Think of all the major waterways that are important to America, to our environmental heritage, to recreation, and to commerce. This bill affects all of them.

Among the projects, this bill restores wetlands in the upper Connecticut River basin in Vermont and New Hampshire, restores oyster habitats in the Chesapeake Bay, restores fisheries in the Great Lakes, implements an environmental management program for the Rio Grande River, continues restoration of the Florida Everglades, restores areas of coastal Louisiana damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, restores habitat on the upper Mississippi and Illinois water systems, and restores oyster habitats on the Long Island Sound.

Flood control obviously is important. If we learned anything about Mother Nature in the last 15 years, it is that we very often need protection from her storms. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita obviously are devastating examples.

The good news is that Corps projects have prevented an estimated $706 billion in flood damage within the last 25 years with an investment of one-seventh that amount.

During the 1993 flood alone, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was prevented by flood control facilities in place at the time.

This legislation authorizes flood control projects in California, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Minnesota, Kentucky, South Carolina, Idaho, Washington, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, and Arkansas, to name a few.

Transportation efficiency is another benefit. While the majority of this legislation is for environmental protection and restoration, a key bipartisan economic commission we include provides transportation efficiency and environmental sustainability on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

As the world becomes more competitive, America must also. From 1970 to 2003, the value of U.S. trade increased twenty-fourfold and 70 percent since 1994, an average annual growth rate of over 10 percent. We can expect demand for U.S. exports to dramatically increase over 34 years. We must ask ourself, or that part of our exports that are commodities: Will there be growth in transportation in the next 20 to 50 years to accommodate the growth in demand for commercial transportation?

If we listen to the Department of Transportation, they are already predicting the congestion on our roads will double in the next quarter of a century.

From where I sit, capacity on the rails is at a maximum. It is a lot tougher to build a new railroad than it is to maintain the locks on an existing waterway system. If we think our roads are congested now, think of what will happen if we cannot relieve the pressure on our highways. Water transportation is an inadequately tapped capacity, and it is good news because water transportation is efficient, it is safe, it conserves fuel, and it protects the air and the environment. One medium-size barge tow can carry the same amount of freight as 870 trucks. That fact alone speaks volumes to the benefits of water transport. With oil prices at a record $72 per barrel, consider the advantage of a twin engine barge that can carry the equivalent of 870 trucks.

Over the past 35 years, waterborne commerce on the upper Mississippi River has more than tripled. It currently carries 60 percent of our Nation's corn exports and 45 percent of our Nation's soybean exports. It does so at two-thirds the cost of rail when and if rail is available.

In Missouri alone, we ship 34.7 million tons of commodities, with a combined value of more than $4 billion, and it isn't just agricultural products. It includes coal, petroleum, aggregates, grain, chemicals, iron, steel, minerals, fertilizers, and other commodities.

The sad fact is our navigable waterways are in environmental and economic decline. Jobs, markets, and the availability of habitat for fish and wildlife are at stake. The American Society of Civil Engineers grades navigable waterways infrastructure with a D-minus, with over 50 percent of the locks functionally obsolete despite increased demand. These locks were built 75 years ago with a life expectancy of 50 years. If you look at the locks when they are locking through a tow, they don't just leak, they shed tons of water. They are past the stage where continued application of chewing gum and duct tape are going to protect the water transportation infrastructure we need.

This bill is a plan that gets the Corps back in the business of building for the future rather than haggling about predicting it. The legislation contains authorization for funding to improve navigation on a number of our waterways in several States--Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, Virginia, Delaware, Maine, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. My interest is a key piece of the bill that modernizes locks and dams on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

We authorize capacity on locks 20 to 25 on the Missouri River in Peoria and LaGrange on the Illinois. New 1,200-foot locks on the Mississippi will provide equal capacity in the bottleneck region downstream of the 1,200-foot lock 19 at Keokuk and upstream locks 26 and 27 near St. Louis.

What happens with the 600-foot lock as now exists today? All the modern tows are 1,200 feet long, so we have to double lock through them, push half the barges in, lock them down, bring the water down, push the other half of the barge in, lock it down. That is a tremendous bottleneck, and even though 600-foot locks are in very degraded condition, half the cost of the new locks will be paid by private users who pay into the inland waterways trust fund. Additional funds would be provided for mitigation and small-scale and nonstructural measures to improve efficiency.

There is lots of talk around here about wanting to increase trade. All the productive farmers, commercial family farms in Missouri know that trade is essential, not only for their well-being, but for the strength of the economy to bring revenue to rural communities and the rest of the world. But we can't have those without the basic transportation infrastructure necessary to move goods from buyers to sellers. New efficiency helps give our producers an edge that can make or break opportunities in the international marketplace.

As we look 50 years into the future, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: Should we have a system that promotes growth or should we be confined to a transportation straitjacket designed not for 2050 but for 1950 or earlier with paddle wheel boats?

Further, we can ask ourselves if dramatic investments should be made to address environmental problems and opportunities that exist on these great waterways. In both cases, the answer to me, and I hope a majority of this body, must be, of course, we must modernize and improve.

Seventy years ago, some argued that a transportation system on the Mississippi River was not justified. But Congress bravely stepped forward and decided it would not try to predict the future but to shape the future and decide to invest in a system despite the naysayers. Over 84 million tons per year later, clearly the decision was wise.

A couple years ago, a veteran chief economist at the USDA, talking about transportation efficiency and the ability of farmers to win markets and higher prices, said that transportation is fundamentally related. He predicted that corn exports should rise over the next 10 years by 45 percent, and 70 percent of that will travel down the Mississippi River.

This decision to improve the waterways has not been taken lightly. All decisions have been documented and coordinated with an interagency Federal principles group, independent technical reviews and stakeholders and have been made available for public review and comment.

The Corps of Engineers spent $70 million completing an anticipated 6- year study that actually took 14 years to complete. That was only three times over budget. During that period, there have been no less than 35 meetings of Governors' committees, 28 meetings of economic coordinating committees among the States, and a minimum of 44 meetings of the Navigation and Environmental Coordination Committee;

additionally, 130 briefings for special interest groups, 25 newsletters, at least 6 sets of public meetings in 46 locations with over 4,000 people in attendance. There are some who say we ought to study it some more. Give me a break. To say the least, this has been a very long transparent and representative process, and while we have been studying, our competitors have been building.

One of the saddest sights I have seen recently is a picture of exports from New Orleans. Rather than exporting American commodities, do you know what they are exporting? Barges. They are exporting barges and tow boats that couldn't operate efficiently on the existing lock system to Brazil and other areas so they can have modern transportation means that will eat our lunch both literally and figuratively.

Given the extraordinary delay so far and given the reality that large-scale construction takes not weeks, not months but decades, further delay is no longer an option. That is why I am very pleased to join a bipartisan group of Senators who agree we must improve the efficiency and the environmental sustainability of our great resources.

The transportation efficiency provisions are supported by a broad- based group of States, farm groups, shippers, labor, and those who pay taxes into the trust fund.

Of particular note, I appreciate the strong support from the carpenters, corn growers, farm bureau, soybean growers, energy and construction materials industry.

Additionally, I thank Senators McCaskill, Durbin, Obama, Grassley, and Harkin for their strong bipartisan support as well.

As for the budget, for some, this bill is too small; for others, it is too big. It is important to understand the budget implications of this legislation in the real world. We are contending with difficult budget realities. It is critical that we be mindful of those realities as we make investments in the infrastructure that supports those who manufacture, grow, buy, and sell products so we can expand our economy, create jobs, secure our future, and pay the taxes our Government needs to continue providing support for the infrastructure.

This is an authorization bill. It does not spend $1--not $1. It makes projects eligible within budget constraints. With the allocation provided the Appropriations Committee, the Congress and the President will fund projects deemed to be of the highest priority. The remaining will not be funded because of budget issues. This WRDA process simply allows for projects to be considered during the process of appropriations. Some will measure up, some will not, although the ones in this bill have gone through rigorous examination to get this far.

I believe we strike a balance that disciplines the new projects to criteria fairly applied while addressing a great number of water resource priorities.

This legislation is supported by the National Waterways Alliance, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, the California Coastal Coalition, AASHTO, and 250 other organizations.

My thanks to the Environment and Public Works Committee, its leadership, its staff, the staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work and the commitment to bring WRDA to the floor in a timely manner.

Again, I particularly thank Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for their forbearance. I look forward to debate and final passage.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to report to my colleagues on a trip, an Intelligence Committee trip, that I led to Iraq this past weekend, with Senators Snowe and Chambliss and Congressman Issa. We found some very amazing things. We visited Tikrit, Baghdad, Ramadi, Balad. We talked to the commanding officers, sat down and talked with our troops, our soldiers, marines, and airmen.

In Ramadi--which only a month or so ago had been a denied area, an area so hostile that heavily armed U.S. units could not even successfully go in. It was extremely dangerous. On Sunday, as a result of changes that have happened in Ramadi in the last several weeks, the four of us Members of Congress, with the general in charge of the area, General Gaskin, and a driver, and two marines with M-16s, went down to downtown Baghdad. We had no phalanx of troops around us, no helicopters flying overhead. We got out and walked in downtown Baghdad at ``Firecracker Corner,'' so named, as one might guess, because of the tremendous number of rounds that perpetually were going off in that area.

It was quiet at the time. We went from there into the former Anbar college, which has become the security force headquarters for the area. That building is manned by Iraqi police units, Iraqi army units, and U.S. marines. They were living together, conducting missions together, and apparently they have been extremely successful because Ramadi has changed significantly.

In the last 3 months, attacks in Ramadi have decreased by some 74 percent. I have a chart in the Chamber. You probably cannot see it too well. But the first part shows weekly attacks going from a high of 127, in February, down to 24 in the week of April 20 to 26.

Indirect fire attacks went from 129 per week down to about 10. Improvised explosive device attacks--this is per month--went from over 320 last July, down to, in March, 67 per month; and in April to 28 per month.

Now, what is going on here? Well, it is quite simply that the surge and clear-and-hold counterinsurgency strategy is beginning to work. The mistake we made previously is we would go in and take out al-Qaida and leave. Well, al-Qaida would come right back. And anybody who had cooperated with the coalition forces would be subjected to death or other severe penalties.

Now, with significant new numbers of Iraqi police and army, backed up by the U.S. military, we are able to go in and clear and hold. That is why the marines, the Iraqi police, and army are stationed in downtown Baghdad. This is becoming--it is not yet a denied zone for al-Qaida.

Now, one of the most important and amazing things that has happened is the tribal sheiks, the Sunnis in that area--if you have been following the Al Anbar progress, the Sunni sheiks run that country. They have concluded--having dealt with al-Qaida, and having had their family members killed, businesses disrupted--they have decided that the coalition forces--American, Australian, British--in cooperation with the Iraqi Army and police are far better hopes for security.

By our making a commitment to go in there, they have made a commitment as well. Now they are volunteering large numbers of men to serve in the Iraqi police and the Iraqi Army.

In just a couple weeks, 1,200 Iraqi young men signed up for the army. There are now over 10,000 Iraqi policemen. They are being trained, and they are taking over the area.

As you look at the entire scope of Ramadi, there are 23 tribal areas. Last year, in one or two of the tribal areas, the sheiks were working with us. Now all 23 have joined with us to fight al-Qaida. There are no uncooperative tribes left. They are joining the military and the police force to help keep the area clear.

In downtown Ramadi, the U.S. military has gone in and been able to repair and help reopen the largest, most important mosque in Ramadi, the mosque that is central for the Sunnis in Al Anbar. It had been closed since the start of the war. Now, this past Friday, hundreds of Iraqis were able to attend services. The U.S. military has supplied and set up mosque speakers in Ramadi to broadcast security messages in addition to messages from the local Imams.

This is just one example we saw. In Baghdad, we learned the clear- and-hold strategy is working. Areas which had been highly dangerous, with a high number of attacks daily, now, because of the presence of the joint security forces--Iraqi, U.S., and coalition forces--have seen the incidents decline by more than two-thirds.

What does this mean? Well, it means al-Qaida is being significantly degraded. Significant numbers of al-Qaida have been killed and detained, and others have been forced out of Baghdad and Al Anbar. Our coalition forces, with the help of the Iraqi military, are, I understand, doing a very good job tracking them down and eliminating them.

Now, this is not conclusive. This is only the first results of the surge and the effective counterinsurgency strategy. It was recommended by the Baker-Hamilton commission last year, and it is being implemented by General Petraeus, who is an expert on counterinsurgency.

I would say that Marine General Gaskin, who is running Al Anbar, is doing a magnificent job. I was impressed with what we heard from General Odierno and General McCrystal and others who are working to make sure they complete their job.

We also met with the most influential leader of the Shia in Iraq, Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. He is the influential leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. We talked with him about the need for the Iraqis to find political solutions and to bring together a unity government of Sunnis, Kurds, and Shias to ensure the safety and stability of their country so they would have an opportunity to go back to normal lives and prosper. We have given them that opportunity, and they need to take that opportunity. We need to do a better job of telling people the difference, and our military is doing that. But at the same time, when we met with our troops, they kept asking us why we aren't getting the money. They know they are doing the job, and they asked us a question which is rather difficult to answer: You sent us over here to do a military mission. We are accomplishing that mission. Why are we not getting the money we need? Where are the Mine Resistant Ambush Protection vehicles that can reduce injuries and deaths so significantly? There was no answer, other than it has been delayed.

Let me conclude by saying we are making great progress, and we cannot afford to tell our troops we are not going to support them by sending in a bifurcated budget, funding a month at a time, a month at a time, because they have a several months' long game plan. When they hear people say that the war is lost, they say: We are risking our lives every day, because the war is not lost. What are people in Congress thinking? We cannot tell the Iraqis and our troops that we are going to cut out of here in a couple of months because we will lose the cooperation of the tribal sheiks and the others who are helping us against al-Qaida if they think we are about ready to leave and leave them at the mercy of al-Qaida, which will come back in if we leave prior to establishing strength in the Iraqi security forces that will enable them to prevent al-Qaida from taking over their country.

Make no mistake about it, that is the goal of al-Qaida. Our intelligence community unanimously says it. Ayman al-Zawahiri has said it, Osama bin Laden has said it. If we don't believe them, at least we ought to believe our intelligence community.

We must pass this supplemental for the full rest of the year without timelines and provide the troops the support and the weapons systems they need.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.