Floor Statements

Mr. President, 71 percent of the American people believe that invasion of Iraq was a mistake, a foreign policy blunder, some say the worst this country has ever done, the worst foreign policy blunder--71 percent. During that poll, there were a few percentage points where people had no opinion. So about 15 percent of the people think the invasion of Iraq was the right decision. We must get our troops home. The sooner we do that, the better off we are.

I look forward to General Petraeus's and Ambassador Crocker's hearing today before the two relevant committees in the House. When this is all over and done with, we will be able to assess when we can have a better opportunity of bringing our troops home. As we indicated earlier today, it seems difficult--when the violence is up, we need more troops and when it is down we need more troops. We can't have it both ways.

The military is at a breaking point. I am not saying that; I am repeating what others have said. General Cody, who is a four-star general on Active Duty, has said he has never seen our military in such a state of disrepair as it is now. So things aren't glowingly good. We have to work together to try to rebuild our military, and one way we can do that is focus on getting the right number of troops to Afghanistan and rebuilding our military, which is, as General Cody said, in very bad shape.

Mr. President, one of the things that will be debated this fall is whether our troops need to be in Iraq for another 50 or 100 years. I think that will be a pivotal part of the debate that takes place in the Presidential elections.

Mr. President, if one of the Democratic hopefuls had said it, I would also be trying to spin it in a way that looked good. The fact is, you can't spin what Senator McCain said at that town hall meeting in a favorable light. His record speaks for itself as to how he feels about the war in Iraq.

My friend always talks about the fact the American people don't want attacks here. Of course, they don't want attacks here at home. Of course, they don't. Everyone should understand, though, that prior to the invasion of Iraq, there was not a terrorist in Iraq, and now, of course, there are lots of them. We need to focus on Osama bin Laden, on his safe haven he has in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and as General Casey-- also an active member of the military--said, we need to get more troops into Afghanistan. We can't do that when we have 140,000 troops this July in Iraq.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of H.R. 3221, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 616, S. 2739, the energy lands bills; that when the bill is considered, the only first-degree amendments in order be the four amendments at the desk by Senator Coburn, with no other amendments in order; that there be a total of 2 hours for debate with respect to the amendments, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a third time, and with no further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of S. 2739, as amended, if amended; further, that the amendments be printed in the Record once this agreement is entered; and that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 2739 be withdrawn, and the order with respect to S. 2483 be vitiated.

Madam President, let me say this: This has taken some time to get done. I appreciate Senator Bingaman's hard work. I appreciate the understanding of Senator Coburn. He came to my office. We had a very warm discussion. If there was a misunderstanding--and obviously there was--I certainly apologize to everyone for any inconvenience I caused.

As I have indicated, I think this accomplishes what we need to do. Again, I appreciate the understanding of Senator Coburn.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Nominations

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, April 10, upon disposition of S. 2739, following consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 476, 477, 478, 479, and 515; that there be a total of 4 hours of debate on the nominations, with 2 hours each under the control of Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed above; that after the first vote in the sequence, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes; and that upon confirmation, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, let me say this also. The first agreement that Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby did could not have been reachable without the understanding and cooperation of Senator Kyl. He reached a long distance to agree to this request. I appreciate his understanding and his willingness to let us move forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we will be in a period of morning business, following my statement and that of the Republican leader, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the times equally divided and controlled between the two leaders. The majority will control the first half, the Republicans the final half.

Then we will begin again the consideration of H.R. 3221, the housing legislation. The first vote today will be at 2:15 this afternoon on a motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment to H.R. 3221.

Mr. President, as we speak, there are extremely important hearings taking place on Capitol Hill. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are here. The hearings started 35 minutes ago. Clearly, the eyes of the world will look upon the Senate as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify today before the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. These two committees are chaired by two of our most senior Senators and two of our most able Senators, Senator Levin and Senator Biden.

The appearances of these good and honorable men, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, are meant to create an open, honest, and productive dialogue with Congress on the state of the war in Iraq and the future of military operations in Iraq. I hope it does occur in that manner, that there will be an open and honest and productive dialogue with us. As the American people weigh the testimony and consider the best course of action in far-off Iraq, only two questions matter: First, has the troop surge brought us closer to the day when our troops can come home? Second, is the war in Iraq making America safer? Sadly, by all accounts, the answer to both questions is no.

The stated purpose of the surge, according to President Bush, was ``return on success,'' meaning that if the surge worked, the troops could come home. Now, the President claims success, but where is the return? It is clear to anyone that the violence has surged. Eleven Americans have been killed since Sunday in Iraq. Dozens and dozens more have been gravely wounded, including three dozen in one rocket attack. Attacks on the Green Zone have intensified. That is supposed to be the safest part of Iraq--the Green Zone. The conflict between al-Sadr and al-Maliki shows no signs of progress; in fact, there is deterioration. Has the surge brought us closer to the day when our troops come home? We have already heard General Petraeus has requested a freeze of troop levels and that President Bush is likely to accept that request.

Has the surge brought us closer to the day when our troops come home? Clearly, the answer is no. Has the war made us safer? No.

Military experts agree our Armed Forces are stretched thin beyond sustainable levels. We are taking in--13 percent of our recruits are young men and women who have committed crimes: felonies, violent crime--13 percent. One out of every eight of the people we are bringing into the military

today are people who have criminal records.

Because our manpower and equipment is in Iraq, we are not committing the resources to hunt down our No. 1 enemy: bin Laden and his al-Qaida network. Because we are bogged down in Iraq, we are not fully engaged in the global challenge of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Middle East, among others.

The moral authority of our great Nation has suffered grave damage, with our former allies refusing to stand with us in even greater numbers.

Has the war in Iraq made America safer? There is no question it has not.

The surge may have provided a temporary window for the Iraq Government to make progress, but it is becoming increasingly clear every day the Iraq Government has squandered that opportunity. Even now, with the war in its sixth year, President Bush has failed to articulate an exit strategy.

A person running for President, Senator McCain, has said we should be there another 50 or 100 years.

President Bush likes to say we will only leave Iraq once victory has been achieved. It is time for the President to be honest with the American people. What does victory look like to President Bush? How does all this end?

We must not commit our courageous troops to the endless task of policing another Nation's bloody civil war. The job of America's Armed Forces--a job to which they risk and often give their lives and limbs-- is to protect our country and its interests. It is time to recommit to that crucial purpose and begin a responsible end to this war.

Mr. President, I, too, recognize that the Senator from Kansas is on the floor today. I have to admit I was pulling for Kansas because they were very lucky in beating UNLV to get where they are. As a result of their good fortune the night they beat UNLV, I have been pulling for them since. Had it not been for the bad night UNLV had, they may not have made it. All the men on Kansas are 6 feet 5 inches; they are virtual giants. They won and it is a good day for Kansas. I acknowledge it is the first time Kansas has won in 20 years. They have a great basketball legacy and I wish them many years of good fortune in the future and congratulate Senator Roberts and the Kansas Jayhawks for their great victory last night.

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

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of Senator McConnell, if he chooses to make some remarks, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until 3 o'clock today. Senators during that period of time will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

At 3 o'clock the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3221, which is the vehicle we have used to move the housing legislation. As previously announced, there will be no votes today.

Mr. President, thanks to Senators Dodd, Baucus, Shelby and Grassley and their staffs, we have had some good bipartisan work on this housing bill. This bill will help communities, homeowners, and the homebuilding industry. This bill is not a silver bullet, but it is an important first step, so I hope we can pass it quickly and overwhelmingly so we can send it along to the House of Representatives.

We have nine pending amendments. I have asked my staff to see what they can do to work with the Republicans to see if we can come up with votes tomorrow morning on those amendments that are germane. The Parliamentarian has had a chance to look at those. A number of them are clearly germane, and I hope we can vote on them tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, this is an important week not only because we are going to finish the housing bill this week but also because General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify. There are a number of questions they must be asked by Members of the Senate. The first one is will our troops come home soon or when will our troops come home. And I think they should be asked if the Iraq war has made America safer.

When the surge began more than a year ago, President Bush labeled the strategy ``return on success.'' As the surge succeeds, according to the President, our troops would come home. We

are already hearing General Petraeus has recommended to freeze the troop levels. In fact, there will be more troops after the freeze takes place than before the surge started. I assume President Bush will accept this request by General Petraeus. By the President's own measure, without our troops returning, there will be no success.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be asked a number of other questions. We have seen what happened a week or 10 days ago in Basra: al-Sadr was attacked by the Iraqi armed services. Al-Maliki, the leader of Iraq, didn't notify the American troops or anyone else and simply took off after al-Sadr. That attack was basically a failure. The police didn't police. The Iraqi police didn't police. At least 1,000 Iraqi soldiers laid down their arms and quit. In fact, they didn't lay down their arms, they gave them over to al-Sadr's forces. Because of that, British artillery was asked to engage, and they did. U.S. troops were asked to come in, and they did. U.S. air support was asked to come in, and they did. We lost a number of soldiers and a significant number of soldiers were wounded.

As some of my colleagues will recall, when this attack by al-Maliki's forces took place, President Bush said: This is what it is all about. This shows the success of what I have been telling everyone.

Our troops in Iraq face a civil war that is growing more violent by the day--by the day. Any notion of renewed commitment to peace among Iraqi factions is betrayed by the news every day. Yesterday, five American soldiers were killed. In one attack, 2 were killed and 31 were wounded.

General Petraeus has to be asked the question: Why is this happening? The battle, as we see in the papers today, is intensifying between al- Sadr and al-Maliki. We have heard today's news that the Sunnis are becoming more violent. The Green Zone, which is supposed to be a safe haven, the safest part of Iraq, has seen a series of attacks over the last couple weeks. People have been killed in the Green Zone. Our soldiers are now being killed in the Green Zone.

The chorus for a smarter strategy in Iraq is growing among defense and military experts. COL John Gentile, a West Point history professor who has served two tours of duty in Iraq, has said directly about Petraeus's action in Iraq, as reported in headline news today in the Wall Street Journal, among other things:

We've come up with this false narrative, this incorrect

explanation of what is going on in Iraq. We've come to see

counterinsurgency as the solution to every problem and we're

losing the ability to wage any other kind of war.

General Petraeus must respond to the criticism of Lieutenant Colonel Gentile.

General Petraeus is responsible solely for the conditions in Iraq. He has responsibilities nowhere else. But others, including Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and Congress and the President must consider Iraq in the context of America's interests throughout the world. So General Petraeus must be asked: Has the war made us safer?

Based on every measure, the answer is a resounding no. Because of Iraq, our military's readiness for full-spectrum combat is stretched dangerously thin and becoming more so every day. Our troops are serving their second, third, fourth, fifth--and some are believed to be headed to Iraq for the sixth time. This is taking a tremendous toll on them and their families and the overall status of our military.

We are not ready for an unexpected crisis that could arise overnight someplace other than Iraq. Each additional tour results in substantially higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. On one tour, 12 percent of the soldiers are coming back with post-traumatic stress disorder; three of four tours, approaching 30 percent.

I, in my office last Friday, was leaving, and a young man and his wife were there with a baby. The young man married this very pretty lady, his wife, the mother of his child, when he was 15. She was 19. He joined the Army and went to Iraq. I said: How are you doing? He said: Not very well. These were his words: My cognitive abilities are gone. He is having trouble thinking. That is what post-traumatic stress disorder is all about.

The military is in such dire need of recruits. I can remember when I practiced law I did some criminal defense work. One of the things we would try with some of these young men who were in trouble was to see if we could get them in the military. The answer was no; they had criminal records. It is not the case anymore. If you haven't graduated from high school, the military will still take you. If you have committed a felony or a serious crime, the military will still take you. In fact, one out of every eight of our new recruits--that is 13 percent--have received a waiver for past criminal misconduct. Some of these are felons, these people who are going into the military after having committed a crime. But even with these people who have no high school diploma, those who have been involved in serious crimes, we are still struggling in meeting our recruitment goals.

As has been reported in all the print press and the electronic media today, we are losing our combat-hardened leaders, those with experience--sergeants, captains. There was a good report on the radio this morning about what are we going to do for colonels and generals 15 years from now, if all the captains are leaving.

We recognize General Petraeus's responsibility is Iraq, but in these hearings, these meetings with General Petraeus, he is going to have to understand we have taken our eye off the ball in other crucial areas of the world, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, all through the Middle East. America's No. 1 enemy, bin Laden, remains free. Al-Qaida is going strong. Because of Iraq, courageous men and women of our National Guard don't have the manpower and equipment to do their job and protect us here at home. Because of Iraq, our moral authority is lost in the eyes of many. Our foreign allies are unwilling to stand by our side. General Petraeus is going to have to respond to some of these questions: When will our troops come home? Has the Iraq war made our country safer? These are the questions that matter. The American people deserve a fair assessment of both.

Mr. President, I appreciate my friend yielding the floor. We are waiting for the Republican leader, who is on his way down here.

Good, he is here. But I do express my appreciation to my friend from Tennessee for yielding the floor.

I wish to speak briefly on the subject of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance bill, known as FISA. Everyone knows this is a very important issue. The Presiding Officer, a member of the Intelligence Committee and a member of the Judiciary Committee, has worked as hard, if not harder, than anyone else on this issue, and I would acknowledge his wide breadth of knowledge on this important piece of legislation. We have relied on the Presiding Officer to give us direction and understanding of this bill, and he has done that.

We all agree on the need to strengthen the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Congress has modernized the act many times since then, and there is broad agreement on improvements that should be made now. I have said many times we need to give the Intelligence community all the tools it needs without compromising the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

The Senate passed its bill in early February. The House, which passed a bill on this subject last November, passed a new version before the Easter recess. The new House bill is similar to the Senate bill, although there remains disagreement over the issue of immunity. In any event, the two Houses must resolve their differences so the final bill can be enacted.

The President keeps giving speeches saying the House must yield to his demand to pass the Senate bill. But that thing we call the Constitution keeps

getting in the way. You can't pass legislation unless the House and the Senate put their stamp of approval on this, and the House has not been willing at this point to move. That is how our system works. The President must work with the Democrats in Congress to find common ground and also give some direction to Republicans in the House and the Senate to negotiate this.

We have tried, since this legislation passed, to work out some type of a compromise. Legislation is the art of compromise. A number of meetings have been scheduled, but with rare exception, Democrats have been meeting with themselves. The Republicans have not been coming to these meetings. There are some positive signs the Republican position may be thawing. I hope that is true. We need good will on all sides to finish this important piece of legislation.

On several occasions, I have proposed a 30-day retroactive extension of the law that expired in February, so the so-called Protect America Act can move forward, at least for a limited period of time. My purpose is to make sure there is no gap in the intelligence-gathering capacity and to set a deadline for final action on a long-term bill. But the President has threatened to veto such a bill, and it has been blocked procedurally by the Republicans.

So I now again propose such an extension. The Republicans may again object. If they do, they bear responsibility for the fact this law is not in place.

Eventually, the President and Republican leaders must come to the negotiating table for the good of the country. We believe that is something that needs to be done and can be and should be done.

I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 583, S. 2664, a 30-day extension of the Protect America Act; that further, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I appreciate my friend, the Republican leader, coming to the floor and objecting to this rather than having someone do it. He gave his explanation, and I appreciate that. It would have been easy for anyone on the other side to object, and I appreciate his laying out the reasons.

But I would say this is not the way to negotiate on the Senate Floor. We have tried. Senator Rockefeller supported the Senate position. I didn't, but Senator Rockefeller did and a number of Democrats supported the Senate-passed position and that was something Senator Rockefeller recognizes. As a result of that, he has tried very hard--February, March, and, of course, he is also working in April--to try to work something out. But as I indicated, he has called meetings and Republicans would not come. Even the people leading the committee, Senator Bond and others, wouldn't show up for the meetings to try to work something out.

Initially, the White House directed none of its people to come. It is a little tough to work something out when that is, in fact, what is happening. The House must be involved. As I have indicated, that is the Constitution.

We pass a lot of things the House disagrees with. They pass things there that we disagree with. No matter how foolish they may think we are or we think they are, we have to work together and get things passed. That is where we are with this legislation.

I would say to my friend, there is no need to criticize trial lawyers and try to focus blame on any one group of people. There are a lot of consumer organizations that have nothing to do with trial lawyers, who really do not like what the Senate did and they have really made their voices heard.

My friend said this unanimous consent request is cover for failure to responsibly act. I would say I think we are at the point where we are as a result of the White House's irresponsibility. Many say what was done in the Senate is only something to protect the telephone companies, the President, and Vice President from liability. We have even gone so far as to say if, in fact, there is liability, and the phone companies are not responsible for having done this--that they were following orders from the White House or whomever they follow orders from, someone in one of the intelligence communities--then the Government should pay for it. It is called substitution.

Senator Levin has pushed this a long time, as has Republican Senator Arlen Specter. It is not as if we are not trying to work through this. It just appears to me, as has happened for more than 7 years with this administration, it is the President's way or no way. I think we have come to the realization here that it is not going to be the President's way. He needs to work with us.

We believe the actions of the President have been irresponsible. But that is what legislation is all about. His people and the Republicans in the Senate and the House should work with us to see if we can come up with something. Just ignoring us is no way to resolve the issue because it appears pretty clear the House is not blinking.

Mr. President, one brief comment. As the Presiding Officer knows, under FISA as passed in 1978, that is in effect no matter what we do here.

Under the 1978 act, someone can go to a judge and ask that there be this information obtained. We would like it to be streamlined. We think the 1978 act should be modernized. We have been happy to work with the White House and Republicans in the Senate and House to do that. I say that in recent days we have seen signs that there is a thaw in the Republican position.

Does that mean we can get things done? I don't know. But at least people are beginning to talk a little bit and that is good. There have been some staff level discussions that have been very good too. I hope we can work together to bridge the differences between the House and Senate and do everything we can to get that done, but also understanding the 1978 FISA Act gives the President a lot of leeway to get this done anyway.

Never let it be said that I tried to get in the last word.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate Report 110-277 be star printed with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, April 8; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3221, the legislative vehicle for the housing legislation, and that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be 12 noon tomorrow. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons.

I would say that on the amendments filed--I think there are about 9 or 10 pending amendments--all but one are not germane. The one that is germane, I believe, is Senator Snowe's amendment. It is my understanding that Senator Murray may have had one today that appears to be germane. We want to dispose of this, if cloture is invoked, which we feel comfortable it will be; those two should have the opportunity for a vote.

So this is a good piece of legislation. Does it solve all of the housing problems? Of course not. But it is a step in the right direction. It is imperfect. I have to say as an indication of how good it is, we are not happy on this side, and they, the Republicans, are not happy on that side. But we are working together, and this legislation I can defend anyplace. It is a good piece of legislation. Do I think it would be better if we have the bankruptcy provision? Of course I do. But it is not there.

This is a very strong package. I look forward to passing it. I think it sets the proper tone for the many things we have to accomplish in the Senate this work period. We have the patent bill. That is very difficult. We have the highway technical corrections, the supplemental appropriations bill. The only way we can get that done is by working together. We have a number of other issues we need to work on. So I am happy we are able to work together at this point on this very important housing legislation.

There will be no votes in the morning. We tried to work things out so that we would have some votes on some of the germane amendments, but in trying to do that, people who have nongermane amendments would not allow us to do that.

The cloture vote will be at 2:15 as we have announced.

If there is no further business from my distinguished friend, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.