Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I would just say that we have a limited amount of time in this body--and we all know that--before the end of the fiscal year will be coming up on September 30. We have to pass some sort of appropriation to fund our defense and our military by that date. We need to pass the Defense authorization bill, which has been voted out of the Armed Services Committee. Senator Levin, our Democratic chairman, has moved that bill forward, and it had strong bipartisan support. It is on the floor today, and it provides quite a number of valuable and critically important benefits for our defense on which we need to vote. For example, it increases the number of persons in the Army, the end-strength of the Army, by 13,000, and 9,000 for the Marine Corps. We have a lot of people talking about the stress on the military, so we need to authorize the growth of the military. It is something we know we need to do, and I think we have a general agreement on that. It is in this bill. We need to move this bill. It authorizes numerous pay bonuses and benefits for our warfighters and their family members. It allows a reservist to draw retirement before age 60 if they volunteer under certain circumstances for active mobilizations. It directs studies on mental health and well-being for soldiers and marines. It establishes a Family Readiness Council. It authorizes funding for the MRAPs, which are those vehicles which are so much more effective against even the most powerful bombs and IED-type attacks.

So this bill, this authorization bill, is not an unimportant matter. Our soldiers are out there now in harm's way, where we sent them, executing the policies we asked them to execute, and we need to support them by doing our job. We complain that Iraq can't pass this bill or that bill; we need to pass our own bill.

Not only do we need to get this authorization bill passed, but we have to get on next week to the appropriations bill to actually fund the military because if we do not do so, the funding stops. Under American law, if Congress does not appropriate funds, nobody can spend funds. It is just that simple.

We have to do our job, and I hope we will. I am troubled to see a lot of things beginning to occur that indicate there is an agenda afoot here, at least by some, that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to get this work done.

For example, the first amendment brought up on the Defense bill--not a part of the committee bill but on the floor here--is to provide to enemy terrorists habeas corpus rights they have never been provided by any nation in history during a time of war and certainly not our own Nation. It is frustrating for me to hear people say we want to restore habeas rights to captive enemy combatants. If we did it, we should at least perhaps give priority to lawful enemy combatants. Most of these are unlawful enemy combatants who have not in any way followed the rules of war and therefore are not provided, in normal circumstances, the full protections of the Geneva Convention. So I am worried about that.

The President has said if that amendment passes, he will veto the bill. So what will we have done then? Are people in here going to have a good feeling about that--they made the President veto the bill--that we provide unprecedented rights to captives who are setting about to attack and kill Americans? We are releasing people from Guantanamo and have released quite a number of them. Quite a number of them have been recaptured on the battlefield trying to kill our sons and our daughters who are out there because this Congress sent them out there. So I think we need to get our heads straight.

Now, in addition to that, we have Senator Durbin offering the DREAM Act amendment, an immigration bill, to this bill.

Senator Kennedy says he intends to offer hate crimes legislation. These are controversial pieces of legislation, unrelated, really, to the Defense Department. They ought not be passed. They have been rejected before. Certainly the DREAM Act was.

Let me talk about this DREAM Act. It is something Senator Durbin points out that I have objected to before. I have objected to it before when it came up in the Judiciary Committee, not in the Armed Services Committee.

The Durbin amendment, as filed as of the end of July, would do a number of things. It will, indeed, provide amnesty, the full panoply of rights we give to any citizen who comes here lawfully. It provides a full citizenship track and full rights for quite a number of illegal aliens, putting them on a direct path to citizenship. A conservative estimate done by the Migration Policy Institute suggests that at least 1.3 million will be eligible for amnesty. It will also allow current illegal aliens, those who would be provided amnesty under this bill, and future illegal aliens who come here after this day, illegally-- hopefully, I thought we decided when the comprehensive bill was voted down, the American people were saying let's end illegal immigration--it would provide for them to be eligible for in-State tuition at public universities, even when the university denies in-State tuition to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens.

It would reverse 1996 law that quite rationally said let's not reward people who are here illegally by giving them a discounted rate of tuition. How much more simple is it than that?

It would provide Federal financial aid in the form of student loans and work/study programs, subsidized by Federal money. It is unclear, it appears, whether Pell grants, direct Federal grants, are going to be provided to people in our country illegally, with which to go to college, whereas hard-working Americans, many of them, don't qualify for Pell grants--and we need to expand Pell grants. Why would we then be providing them to persons who would come into our country illegally?

They say they may have come when they were younger. Maybe they did. But if you have a limited number of persons to whom you can provide Pell grants or subsidized loans, I suggest they should be given to those who are lawfully here, not those who are unlawfully here.

There is an old slogan: If you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. I suggest if you have a problem with people coming into the country illegally, the first thing you should do is stop subsidizing that illegal behavior by giving them discounted tuition.

The DREAM Act establishes a seamless process to take illegal aliens directly from illegal status to conditional permanent resident status, then to legal permanent resident status, and then the next step, of course, is citizenship. First, illegal aliens who came here before age 16 and have been here illegally for the past 5 years will be given ``conditional'' permanent residence, or green cards, if they have been admitted to an institution of higher education or have a GED, or have a high school diploma. The ``conditional'' green card, which is good for 6 years, will be converted to a full green card. A green card means you have a legal permanent residence status in America. In this case it would be a direct result of an illegal entry into the United States, or an illegal overstay. It will be converted to a full green card if the alien completes 2 years of a bachelor's degree or serves 2 years in the uniformed services. This is broader than the term ``military service,'' as people have said. ``Uniformed services,'' as defined by title 10, includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps and the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, in addition to the military. Or they would qualify if they can't do those because of hardship.

After 5 years of ``conditional,'' or full green card permanent status, the aliens amnestied under the DREAM Act will be eligible for citizenship.

We are also expanding, through this amendment, if it is to be adopted, immigration into the country based on an illegal action in a number of ways. There is nothing in the DREAM Act that limits the ability of the illegal aliens who are being provided permanent status and citizenship here to bring in their family members. Once an illegal alien becomes a legal resident under the act, they can immigrate their spouses and their children. As soon as the illegal alien becomes a citizen, he or she will be able to bring in, to immigrate their parents to the country as a matter of right. So there is no numerical limit to the number of parents a citizen can immigrate into the United States. I think that is one of the flaws in our current law.

The reason that is important is because we are generous in immigration. We allow a million or more a year to come legally into our country. We do provide quite a number of generous provisions that allow people to come. But if you are allowing those limited number of slots-- in effect, we have only so many that the country does allow and would desire to allow to come--we are providing parents of those who have been illegal to be able to come as a guaranteed right, whereas another who may have a master's degree, may have a high skill, may have learned English in Honduras and is valedictorian of their school or college-- they can't get in. But they have an automatic right for a parent, who may have done far less in the scheme of things to justify taking one of those limited slots the country has to offer. That is why I am concerned about that.

We don't think about it in correct terms. We have to understand we cannot accept everybody in the world. We should create a generous system of immigration that allows people to come to America, but we ought to set up a legal system that we are proud of and that sets good standards, that allows a person to have the greatest opportunity to be successful here, to have more precedence in entry--which is exactly what Canada does, and Canada is quite proud of it.

In 1996, Congress passed this law:

Not withstanding any other provision of law, an alien who

is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be

eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for

any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or

national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit

(in no less an amount, duration and scope) without regard to

whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

The DREAM Act eliminates this provision that has been offered on the Defense bill. It would reverse this current Federal law. The result is that States will be able to offer in-State tuition to illegal aliens.

I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I will conclude by saying there are a host of reasons why we need not, ought not pass the DREAM Act itself. But that is a matter of debate that we have had several different times now. What we need to be doing now is providing support for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardsmen we sent in harm's way by passing the Defense authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill. We don't need to be talking about the DREAM Act. We don't need to be talking about hate crimes. We don't need to be offering the first amendment out of the chute, an amendment that provides habeas benefits to unlawful combatants, legal rights that have never been given by the United States in the history of the Republic, nor any other nation in the history of the world.

We need to get serious and get some work done here that is important and not be distracted with amendments that are going to be politically controversial and can only make it more difficult for us to do our duty as a Congress.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I had the distinct pleasure of visiting Carrollton, AL, in Pickens County, where they have a museum to maintain the history of a large German prisoner of war camp in the United States. The Senator mentioned that certain legal rights were accorded 50 or so prisoners. But those were prisoners tried in Nuremberg after the war--after the war--for war crimes.

Now, is the Senator aware of any instance in either the German camps or other prisoners who may have been held in the United States during wartime being provided habeas rights?

Madam President, I wish to thank Senator Kyl for his hard work on these important issues. He is a superb lawyer who is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, and he has been a member of the Intelligence Committee. He understands these issues and, thanklessly, he devotes hours of his time to try to research and study Supreme Court cases to try to make sure we do the right thing here.

The most important thing for us to remember is this, and Senator Kyl just said it, that the refrain we are hearing about restoring habeas rights to prisoners of war, even unlawful combatant detainees, is not so. We have not done that, and it is a matter that is quite clear.

The origin of the great writ--the writ of habeas corpus--can be traced back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century. It is truly a great writ. It is truly a powerful tool for any person who is being detained to demand that someone, somewhere come forward and tell the world why they are being detained. That is what totalitarian and Communist governments do all the time. These kinds of dictators and Communists and Nazis go out and grab people and put them in jail and never charge them, never announce where they are, even. So that is not what we want to do here. However, never in the history of the writ's existence has an English or American court granted habeas to enemy combatants held during a time of war. As early as 1793, the American courts--1793-- recognized that foreign prisoners held by the military during armed conflict have no inherent right to judicial review of their detention. They have no inherent right to that. You do have an inherent right by writ of habeas corpus if you qualify and meet the criteria.

So that year, in 1793, a district court in Pennsylvania said:

Courts will not grant a habeas corpus in the case of a

prisoner of war because such a decision on this question is

in another place being a part of the rights of sovereignty.

In other words, national power.

The Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed that position in 1950 in a case called Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that case, the Supreme Court made expressly clear that U.S. constitutional protections do not apply to aliens who are detained outside the borders. It was the first case to deal with a habeas petition of enemy combatants detained outside the borders of the United States since the statute was originally enacted as part or the Judiciary Act of 1789. It is now codified as 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.

In that case, German nationals living in China during World War II, having never lived in the United States, were accused of violating the laws of war. They were tried by a U.S. military tribunal in China, convicted, and sent to Landsberg Prison in Germany, then an occupied sector of Germany, to serve their sentences. Some of the convicts, including Eisentrager, questioned the legality of their trials and filed for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, right here in DC, stating that the military's actions violated their rights as guaranteed by several portions of the U.S. Constitution, including article III of the fifth amendment. In denying habeas to these German nationals, the court expressly rejected the argument that enemy combatants detained overseas have a constitutional right to petition U.S. courts for habeas relief, noting that:

Nothing in the text of our constitution extends such a

right.

It rejected the view that the U.S. Constitution applies to enemy war prisoners held abroad. The court claimed:

No decision of this court supports such a view. None of the

learned commentators on our Constitution has ever hinted at

it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it.

Where do we keep coming up with this idea that habeas is applicable to prisoners of war? I am baffled. The Court explained emphatically that such a constitutional entitlement would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy.

Habeas proceedings would diminish the prestige of our

commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals.

It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering of

a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is

ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his

own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from

the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.

That is a pretty clear statement. How could it be otherwise? Congress authorizes a state of hostilities. We fund it. The President, as the Commander in Chief, the military commanders execute it, and now we have it in our heads somehow that the persons

our commanders are charged with reducing to submission have a right to sue us.

The Court further held--this is in 1950--that the fifth amendment is inapplicable to aliens abroad and, in reasoning fully applicable to the suspension clause, explained ``extraterritorial application of organic law'' to aliens would be inconceivable.

Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson, who was referred to by Senator Dodd and Senator Kyl--a great Justice on the Court--stated:

The Constitution does not confer a right of personal

security or an immunity from military trial and punishment

upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a

government at war with the United States.

That is pretty plain language, wouldn't you say? I think that is the plain language of the Constitution. It does not give them immunity from military trial.

Even if, as opponents mistakenly argue, this amendment restores a statutory right to habeas, the Supreme Court has also held that Congress may freely repeal habeas jurisdiction if it affords an adequate and effective substitute or remedy. Essentially, if legislation strips habeas, according to the Supreme Court, the substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a person's detention, does not constitute a suspension of the right of habeas corpus. In other words, if they provide some fair procedure for even prisoners of war that we decide is consistent with our military efforts and consistent with our sense of fairness, that does not confer and give a guaranteed right to a habeas corpus review.

The Military Commission Act of 2006 was drafted with these important Supreme Court precedents in mind. After careful negotiation among our Members and careful analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Congress went above and beyond what was required by the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions to ensure detainees, even terrorists, at Guantanamo Bay, had an adequate and effective substitute method to test the legality of their detention.

So we did that. We did not fail to respond. We did that. The MCA provides alien enemy combatants far more legal process than has ever been afforded by any country in the history of armed conflict.

I am not aware of a single country in the history of armed conflict that has provided more rights than our procedures that we have established under the Military Act that we passed and the President signed into law last October.

The Combatant Status Review Tribunal for detainees is more robust than those to which lawful combatants, honorable soldiers in organized militaries of a foreign nation, are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions.

Let me repeat that and drive home the importance of that concept. The Geneva Conventions were decided upon by a group of nations that came together and thought that during the course of military conflicts, too many things happened that are not justified and are not necessary and are damaging to people in ways that could not be justified. We wrote the conventions, the nations did, to try to ameliorate some of the problems in warfare. We said that if you have a lawful combatant, as part of the Geneva Conventions, a person who has signed up for his or her country, fighting for the country, who wears a uniform, who carries his weapons openly and does not act in a surreptitious manner, does not act in a terroristic manner but fight battles according to the laws of war--if captured, must be treated and afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

That is a good standard of review and protection. Congress passed a law to provide for the people at Guantanamo, who are not lawful combatants but are unlawful enemy combatants and who have not historically been considered to have been covered by the Geneva Convention. We afforded them privileges that are not required even under the Geneva Conventions on how you handle detainees.

Let's talk about our present conflict, the war on terrorism. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has made this point. If you think about it, it is worthy of our consideration. John Ashcroft is a great believer in American liberty, the rights of liberty, a key characteristic of the American people. But he points out we ought not to think about restraints that occur as some sort of a balancing test between liberty and control and domination. He says, when you engage in an action that is designed to protect us, the test should be not a balancing test, but the test should be: Does it improve liberty? In other words, if you go to the airport and have to go through one of those checking stations as I did today, the question is: Do you feel more free to fly, having had that inspection occur? Is your liberty to travel, is your liberty to fly safely and securely in an aircraft in America, enhanced because you take a couple of minutes to go through that line? Or not?

If it is, then that is a protection of liberty. We are indeed in a different world than we used to be, when threats fundamentally came from foreign nations. Now, even a few people with dedicated, malicious intent, with modern weapons of mass destruction and death can have tremendous impact on us. So what we are trying to do is execute lawful actions that improve our liberty, not deny liberty but to enhance liberty for all peace-loving and law-abiding American citizens.

I want to talk about Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. As part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress conferred on the Federal courts jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus. Though the language has gone through minor changes since 1789, current law, now codified at 28 U.S.C. section 2241, is essentially the same grant of habeas corpus as originally enacted. The statutory language has never referred specifically to enemy combatants because such a grant was understood not to apply to those individuals detained during a time of war. Congress understood that detention of enemy combatants during time of war is strictly a military decision, since we do not allow enemy combatants to continue their war against us through the judiciary, through litigation.

Though the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that habeas corpus does not extend to alien enemy combatants detained outside the United States, some argue that Justice O'Connor's plurality decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld changed this precedent. In that decision, Justice O'Connor said:

All agree that, absent suspension, habeas corpus remains

available to every individual within the United States.

Proponents of this amendment that we are debating cite this statement by Justice O'Connor as proof that habeas relief is available to all those detained within the United States, regardless of whether they are an alien enemy combatant. Let me note that during World War II, there were 425,000 enemy combatants held within the United States, none of who were allowed relief through habeas petitions. Furthermore, reliance on that statement by Justice O'Connor is wrong, since the question in Hamdi was whether the executive had the authority to detain a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant and whether that citizen detainee had habeas rights. Focusing on that narrow issue, the plurality referred specifically to the rights, in their opinion, the plurality opinion, of citizens, eight times in the opinion; and in the holding of the case-- and the holding of the case is limited to the circumstances of the cases itself--Hamdi was, after all, a U.S. citizen.

Regardless, some advocates maintain that Justice O'Connor's otherwise inconsequential statement, too tenuous to constitute dicta, reversed years of settled precedent and for the first time granted habeas rights to illegal enemy combatants detained overseas. That proposition flies in the face of the commonsense interpretive rule that one does not hide elephants in mouseholes. Had the Hamdi Court intended to extend habeas rights to all individuals in the United States, not just citizens, including suspected foreign terrorists detained outside U.S. territory, it most assuredly would have articulated such a consequential ruling with more clarity. But Hamdi did not present that question and the Court did not resolve it. Moreover, as the Court aptly noted, quoting Eisentrager:

Such extraterritorial application of organic law would have

been so significant an innovation in the practice of

government that, if intended or apprehended, it could

scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment.

Accordingly, had such a consequential holding been made in Eisentrager, it would have been met with prolific commentary from the legal community, from other Justices. It would have been an event, but that event did not occur--because it had no such meaning, of course, as evidenced by the lack of contemporary discussion. No decision subsequent to Eisentrager has reversed its holding that alien enemy combatants have no right to habeas protections guaranteed to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, its holding remains governing law. Moreover, the issue now, if it ever could have been considered ambiguous, has been definitively resolved by the same judge who earlier granted Salim Ahmed Hamdan's habeas petition. Judge James Robertson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued an opinion on December 13 in which he relied, in large part, on Eisentrager to justify his ruling that enemy alien combatants have no constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Judge Robertson, appointed to the bench by President Clinton, dismissed Hamdan's petition for habeas relief on the grounds that the MCA effectively denied his court's jurisdiction to hear the case; recognizing that Congress had removed Hamdan's statutory right to petition the D.C. Circuit Court for habeas relief.

Judge Robertson also held:

Hamdan's connection to the United States lacked the

geographical and volitional predicates necessary to claim a

Constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Well, then, the Rasul case came along. Proponents of this amendment argue that they seek only to restore the right to habeas corpus as found by the Supreme Court in the 2004 case of Rasul v. Bush. Rasul took great pains to emphasize that its extension of habeas to Guantanamo Bay was based not on the Constitution, which clearly is a historic right we talked about on habeas, but it was based on some statute passed by Congress.

Some Justices may have wanted to make Rasul a constitutional holding, but there clearly was no majority for such a position. Supreme Court cases such as Eisentrager are still the governing law on the constitutional reach of habeas and the Congress's ability to limit its statutory application.

These precedents hold that aliens who are either held abroad or held here but who have no substantial connection to this country are not entitled to invoke the U.S. Constitution.

Rasul was an unprecedented decision which effectively and truthfully seemed to fly in the face of all previous Supreme Court and English case law. Several Justices in this case engaged in what I would submit to my colleagues is activism.

The Court extended the reach of the Federal habeas statute to Guantanamo Bay detainees. To my knowledge, this decision was the first time in recorded history that any court of any nation at war held that those whom its military had determined to be enemies had a right of access to its domestic courts and could sue the Commander in Chief to challenge their detention.

The Court based its analysis on the phrase, ``within their respective jurisdictions,'' as used in the Federal habeas statute and various decisions construing that particular provision.

Moreover, the Court expressly distinguished between the statutory and suspension clause holdings of Eisentrager and limited its analysis to only the statutory grant of habeas. The Court determined that the measure of the Guantanamo lease agreement between the United States and Cuba allows for the jurisdiction of habeas claims since the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction over the land on which the naval base is situated, although it does not have ``ultimate authority.''

Furthermore, the majority, I think and others think, mischaracterized the congressional statute as meaning that the writ of habeas corpus could be issued if ``the custodian can be reached by service of process'' and not the detainee.

As Justice Scalia accurately pointed out in his dissent, the majority:

springs a trap on the executive, subjecting Guantanamo Bay to

the oversight of the Federal courts even though it has never

before been thought to be within their jurisdictions and thus

making it a foolish place to have housed alien wartime

detainees.''

Furthermore, the decision opens a veritable Pandora's Box since it ``permits an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to bring a section 2241 petition against the Secretary of Defense.''

This case was a clear-cut example of, I believe, Supreme Court overreach. They seemed determined to do something about this. They wanted to do something about it. Apparently, they did not like it. So in straining to grant U.S. courts jurisdiction over terrorists held outside the United States, the Supreme Court determined, for the first time in history, that a simple lease agreement brought Guantanamo Bay within the jurisdiction of the court.

Read broadly, the majority opinion could be used to bring U.S. military bases and detention facilities across the world within the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts. Fortunately, in that opinion, Justice Kennedy did limit the application of the holding to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Congress, however, addressed the issue because, remember, this was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of a statute Congress passed and which Congress changed, not on the Constitution ratified by the American people.

So less than a year ago, Congress addressed the issue when it passed the Military Commissions Act, which precluded detainees from challenging their detention through habeas petitions.

Now, if the Court relied on the statute as we wrote it before, we can change that statute, and we did. In doing so, Congress adhered to Supreme Court precedent and created an effective and adequate substitute in the form of a Combatant Status Review Tribunals and allowing detainees an opportunity to challenge the determinations made by the tribunals, even in the district court in the District of Columbia.

So it set up a Combatant Status Review Tribunal so they can bring and make their argument, and if they do not like the military's determination on that, they can get to a Federal court. That is not habeas, but it is a pretty good procedure, more than ever has been given before to prisoners of war. So it seems we finally worked this thing out.

On February 20 of this year, the DC Circuit Court dismissed all pending habeas cases from the Guantanamo Bay detainees for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, on April 2 of this year, the Supreme Court denied a certiorari petition from the petitioners in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, refusing to review their claims that the Military Commissions Act--that last year we passed--does not deprive courts of jurisdiction to hear their habeas corpus claims and that it would be unconstitutional to do so, for Congress to pass it. They rejected that.

The Court did not find it was unconstitutional, what Congress passed, and, in fact, found that Congress did what Congress intended to do, creating a substitute appellate process so prisoners could have a review of their detention but not give them the full panoply of habeas corpus rights provided to American citizens.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed itself on June 29 of this year and agreed to review both the Boumediene and Al Odah cases. This review could very well address the constitutionality of the habeas bars in the Military Commissions Act, and, much like this amendment, further undermine the executive's constitutional authority to detain enemy combatants in a time of war.

I hope the Supreme Court will not do that, but they have agreed to hear that case and give it one more final review. Certainly, as of this date, the case authority is clear, that the Constitution does not provide habeas protection to noncitizen enemy combatants on foreign territory not part of the United States.

I say that because people have come in on several points along the way and accused President Bush or the Attorney General or others of taking improper positions.

In most instances, the courts have ruled in favor of the executive in these cases, on a few cases they found those procedures not to be statutory or pass muster. But what I will say to you is, in these cases, in almost each instance

they have reversed previous law. So the executive branch and our military was operating under what they had every right to consider to be the settled law of the land.

So the Court comes in and changes that law. I do not believe our military should be condemned or criticized for taking action they felt, and had every right to believe, was legitimate when they took it.

Now, it is important to remember that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are the most dangerous people who we have captured on the battlefield pursuant to executive war-making power. They have been determined to be ``alien enemy combatants'' and the courts have absolutely no role to play, in my view, in trying to second-guess the wartime decisions made by the executive branch, especially where Congress has given their stamp of approval to the process. It is not the Supreme Court's role to micromanage this war by making decisions that fall outside the scope of congressional authority.

The decisions made by the Supreme Court have long-lasting effect and are not easily undone. If we are unhappy with present foreign policy, Congress can cut off funds for the war or people can vote the President out of office. I would note President Bush was reelected on a promise to continue to pursue with vigor the war against terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and are supposed to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, not to legislate from the bench or to set foreign policy. This setting of foreign policy and conducting military operations are powers squarely within the purview of the executive branch not nine individuals with lifetime appointments sitting on a Court with black robes.

It is not within the court's jurisdiction to decide on war-making decisions but simply the constitutional power. It is important to note the Justices lack the knowledge, in many cases, to address the matter, or have any experience to make these decisions. Have any of them ever served on the frontlines during war, or if they have, have they ever served in a war on terrorism or been a JAG officer or been a company commander, someone who captured enemy prisoners?

A Court's opinion or personal views about this are not a matter that is impressive to me. We expect them to rule and to find Congress's statutes--we expect them to enforce the Constitution. But just to flip- flop around and try to decide that they do not like the way something is done at Guantanamo, and to issue an opinion, would be troubling to me. Hopefully, we will not get to that.

It has to be clear, as I have shown, that if we apprehend enemy combatants in the theater of war, it is within the executive branch's power to detain them until the hostilities are over. This is a separation of powers issue, and the courts should recognize that. Congress has already addressed what should be done with those detained at Guantanamo Bay. Last October, we granted those detainees unprecedented rights that have never before been provided to prisoners detained during war.

Under the current system that we have provided them, detainees have essentially five layers of protection when challenging detention or determinations made by the Government. All of this is already covered by current law. It was never the intent of Congress, however, to endow the statutory guarantee of habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants held during a time of war.

So if we proceed with the amendment that is before us, we are not restoring the right of habeas corpus; we are effectively overturning 800 years of legal authority and precedent in this area. To quote the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I submit that 800 years of American and English court history certainly constitutes ``super duper'' precedent.

Allowing terrorists to challenge their detention through habeas petitions filed in the DC Circuit courts would undermine military decisions made by the Executive and essentially put wartime decisions regarding the detention of those apprehended while engaged in hostilities toward this country in the hands of judges who are not qualified to make the decisions. They are not empowered to make the decisions. This is exactly why the Founders vested the Executive with this type of decisionmaking authority--decisiveness and ability to act quickly--and to undermine this power would be to trample on the Constitution we are sworn to defend.

Voting in favor of this amendment would be undermining the Executive authority in times of war by making it virtually impossible for the military to detain dangerous terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida and with the Taliban during the war on terror and allowing Federal judges to force the release of detainees whom the military have determined to be extremely dangerous. It is just that simple.

I am disappointed the Senate is proceeding forward with this amendment. I do not believe it is the right thing. It would result in an unprecedented grant of constitutional protection to those suspected of being terrorists.

This further indicates to me that our Congress is not in full comprehension of the seriousness of the war we are engaged in and the determination of those who are determined to kill us. It shows this body is, frankly, often unable to execute a military operation. We cannot get 535 people to execute a military operation and decide who ought to be detained and who ought not to.

The military could go out and conduct a raid, and a firefight could break out, and eight people be killed and eight people captured. Thirty seconds before, they could have killed all 16. Now, if we detain them, we have to bring soldiers from the war field, present evidence of some kind, gather evidence to try to justify the detention. We all know quite a large number of those who have been released from Guantanamo have reappeared and been captured again on the battlefield trying to kill us. That is a fact. We are not making that up.

I wish these people in Guantanamo were the kind of people who would not go back to the battle. I wish they were all wrongly held so we could let them go home. But what if their determination is to continue to attack American soldiers, and it is your son out there, your daughter out there on the battlefield, and somebody says in the U.S. Congress, ``We don't think you have enough evidence to hold them''? What do we know about what happened?

We have given that power to the executive branch to conduct the war. That is who is supposed to be making those decisions. That is who is required to preserve and protect the security of the American people. I do not think that makes sense. It is not a little matter. It will set a precedent for future times. We are eroding the ability of the leadership of this country to execute and carry out a military operation, which by its very nature involves death and destruction of an enemy.

So I have to say to my colleagues, we need to think this issue through. This may be a political deal now that we can use to beat up President Bush, but let me say to my colleagues, you had your victory in the last election, if not in 2004. We will have a new President soon. We need to get away from this personal and political perspective. We need to be thinking about the long-term history of the United States. We need to be thinking about other wars we may be involved in in the future. We need to be asking ourselves: Are we creating a circumstance in which a devious, skillful, malicious enemy can utilize our very laws to destroy us, place at risk our own soldiers, place at risk American citizens, place at risk our people serving in military bases around the world?

Let's be careful about that. We have provided them, by statute last year, a procedure to contest their detention. Large numbers of those who have been detained have already been released, and quite a number of those have been recaptured on the battlefield attempting to destroy America and what we stand for, attacking our own sons and daughters.

I urge my colleagues to be careful. To say we need to restore the right of habeas corpus is not correct. We have never provided habeas corpus to enemies of the United States, for heaven's sake. I share again the overall concept that we are in a difficult new world. The Constitution provides for reasonable searches and seizures and such things as that.

Our country is threatened, and our people's liberties are threatened. Liberty is important. Freedom is important. We in Congress do not need to be curtailing significantly liberty in America. We certainly do not need to be eroding constitutional protections that are provided to American citizens. We are not doing that. The Supreme Court has never held the Constitution provides protection in this fashion to enemy combatants. So we are not eroding the Constitution.

What we have come up with is a realistic process that will, in the end, provide more liberty, more freedom to American citizens than if we were subjected to a system by which we are releasing terrorists again and again who are out to kill and destroy us. That is all I would say on the fundamental question of liberty and freedom and law.

Let's get our thinking straight. Let's look at this issue carefully. Let's be sure we know that no country has ever provided such protections to enemy combatants. The fact that 50 out of 400,000 German prisoners who were tried after the war in Nuremberg had certain legal provisions and rights provided them in no way whatsoever should be construed to say we provided habeas rights to other prisoners during the course of a war. They were not provided to the 400,000 German prisoners held in the United States, that is for sure.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I understand some effort is being made to pursue the amendment offered by Senator Specter, which is very troubling to me because if it were to pass, it would reverse the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that we passed last September on final passage, 65 to 34. Passage of this amendment would result in a veto of the Defense authorization bill by the President of the United States.

The first amendment we have up that is being pushed to a vote against the pleas of people on this side would result in a veto of the Defense authorization bill. The second amendment may well raise the same issue, I understand. Not only that, we have very controversial amendments that are being made filed to this bill and that have been offered for a vote on this bill which are very controversial and are not related to the defense of America--for example, the hate crimes amendment. People have differing views on that. They have offered an amendment on hate crimes on this bill. There is also the amendment on the DREAM Act, which is an immigration amendment that would provide citizenship to people who come here in our education system at a certain age, and even though they are illegally in the country, they would be provided in-state tuition and student loans subsidized by the Federal Government. That is a very controversial matter too. So that is all going to be put on this piece of legislation, apparently.

It raises questions in my mind whether there is any serious desire on the part of the Democratic leadership to see the Defense authorization bill passed. The bill came out of the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, and it didn't have the reversal of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the grant of habeas corpus to illegal enemy combatants, noncitizens on foreign soil. It didn't have that or hate crimes or the DREAM Act.

I just say to my colleagues that we need to do the right thing for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardsmen who are serving our Nation now. They are in the field this very moment. They are out walking the streets somewhere in Iraq--160,000 of them--executing this very complex and very important and, so far, effective counterinsurgency strategy that was devised by General Petraeus. They are living with Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi police and doing the things they were asked to do. This bill has a pay raise for them and wounded warrior language that provides additional care for those who are wounded while serving our country. We owe them every single benefit we have to give them. We have military construction to make sure we are able to carry through on the BRAC process. It has acquisition reform. We need to do a better job with the money we spend in acquiring new weapons systems and aircraft and ships and all the things that go with it.

I just say to my colleagues, let's remember now that everything is not required to be placed on this bill. If we pass this amendment to provide habeas corpus protection to illegal enemy combatants, not citizens, not on American soil, not required by the Constitution of the United States, according to decided case authority of Federal courts, that is going to result in a Presidential veto even if it passes. Hopefully, we won't pass that. Why do we want to do that? We need to be spending our time thinking about how we can help those whom we have sent into harm's way to execute a policy that has been decided upon by the Congress of the United States. That is what we need to be doing-- not creating more and more lawsuits, not engaging in more and more political flapdoodle and emotional arguments about restoring habeas corpus, when we have never provided habeas to prisoners of war in the history of the Republic, nor has any other advanced nation provided those kinds of rights.

I urge my colleagues to push back from this brink. Let's don't take action that could result in the failure of a defense authorization bill. It would be the first time we have failed to pass a defense authorization bill since 1961, 46 years ago. Let's don't break that record while we have soldiers in harm's way serving our national interests, attempting to execute the policies and assignments we have given to them. Let's don't do that. Let's don't pass a bill that is going to come back like a ball off of the wall because it will be vetoed by the President. What good is that? Why are we obsessed with this? It wasn't passed in the Armed Services Committee, and it doesn't need to be pushed now.

I urge my colleagues to become fully aware of the dangerous territory which we are entering. We are entering a circumstance in which, if we continue to pursue issues unrelated to the core responsibilities of the Congress to deal with the war we are confronting, we will have failed in our responsibilities and actually fail to pass this important legislation.

In addition, we need to finish up with the Defense bill and go on to the Defense appropriations bill. The fiscal year ends September 30. We need to pass the Defense authorization bill so that we can get to the Defense appropriations bill by next week. That needs to move. We do not need to still be arguing over the DREAM Act, arguing over hate crimes, arguing over providing habeas corpus rights to illegal enemy combatants held somewhere around the world by the American military, a privilege that has never been provided by any nation to people it captures on the battlefield. That is not the right way for us to go. This Congress, if it is a responsible Congress, should move forward this week on the authorization bill and do the appropriations bill next week.

What are the core issues? We have some core issues we ought to debate about the defense of America and our military. Let's stay on those issues, not on extraneous issues.

There is no doubt that we have heard the report of GEN Jimmy Jones's commission, the Government Accountability Office report the week before last, and then last week we heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. We need to have time to discuss seriously--and this side has certainly agreed to that and it is contemplated that we will have a generous time to discuss our commitment in Iraq, what it is, what our goals are, how we can achieve those goals, what the troop levels should be, how they are going to be drawn down, are they being drawn down fast enough, and what other issues are relevant. Those are legitimate issues on which we should spend time.

I am very concerned these other issues will be distracting us from those issues, that we will be utilizing time that ought to be on the core issues of

defense of this country, and I hope those leaders, particularly our Democratic leadership, are not going to put us in a position where we will not meet our responsibilities.

For the past 46 years, we have passed a Defense authorization bill. At the rate we are headed, even if we pass it, it is going to be vetoed because of amendments wholly unrelated to the Defense of this country. We need to pass a Defense appropriations bill, and we need to get on that quickly because the fiscal year is ending. For my colleagues' information, we are going to have to do something to continue to fund defense because if we do not pass a Defense authorization bill, the fact is that no money can be spent in the whole Department of Defense unless we are being attacked. It is very troubling, and it could have tremendous disruptive impacts throughout the entirety of our defense establishment.

Under the Antideficiency Act, if Congress does not appropriate money, the executive branch cannot spend it. It cannot spend what has not been appropriated. That is the Constitution, and that is what the Antideficiency Act says. The budget and last year's appropriations end September 30. We need to pass a new bill so we can go forward into next year.

We have a pretty good bill that came out of committee. There will be some disagreement here, there, and on a few other matters. We will bring those up, and good people will disagree. I certainly understand that point. We need to be working on those issues, not being distracted on matters unrelated to the core of defending America in this time of terrorism.

I share those thoughts and hopefully our colleagues in the leadership can continue to work and some way we can avoid the end toward which it appears we are heading.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. President, it is time for us to review our policy in Iraq. We have been aware this day was coming for some time.

To recap how things have occurred, we had hearings in the early part of this year to confirm General Petraeus. This has been General Petraeus's third tour in Iraq. I first had the opportunity to meet with him when he commanded the 101st Airborne in Mosul. He was part of the initial invasion--a brilliant combat commander who impressed all of us on our CODEL.

I later visited him in Iraq when he was in charge of training the Iraqi military and their police. It was a critical moment in their development. He was asked to go back early to do that, and he agreed to do so.

He then returned to the United States and wrote the counterinsurgency manual for the Department of Defense. Before the ink was dry on that manual, the President asked him to go back to Iraq, for the third time, to lead this critical effort at this critical time.

So I wish to first say how disappointed I have been that some have seen fit to attack this man, attack what he might say. I am afraid, frankly, the purpose of that was to sort of preemptively smear his testimony. I saw most of his testimony this afternoon. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I expect to see more of it tomorrow and to be there tomorrow when he testifies before our committee and to hear it all in complete form.

So let me say this: It is right and just and appropriate this Congress, which sent him there in January, I believe, which voted on May 24 to fund the surge--we had a lot of debate about this surge, whether we should do it, whether we should increase our troop levels. The situation in Baghdad was not good. The situation in Al Anbar had made some improvement but was not where we wanted it to be. The country was in a difficult time.

The President said: Let's step up the troop level. Let's have a surge. We had much debate about it. I know our leader, Harry Reid, went to the White House along with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. They came out with an agreement, and only 14 Senators opposed--in a truly bipartisan vote--funding of this effort.

So I have been disappointed that some announced it a failure even before it got started good. But we all committed to one thing; and that is that General Petraeus would come back and he would report to us and we would hear from him.

Some thought we needed more than that. So we as a Congress included in our funding legislation a requirement that another commission be set up, an independent commission, with retired officers and so forth. GEN Jimmy Jones, former Commandant of the Marine Corps and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, chaired that commission. He reported last week.

Also, we had the Government Accountability Office do an independent analysis of the benchmarks in Iraq.

Now we are having General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, who is clearly one of the best respected Ambassadors in the State Department with experience in this region of the world. They are giving us their report today and tomorrow.

If Congress concludes this effort ought not to go forward, so be it. But we ought to do it after listening to our generals. In fact, I noticed some of the polling data showed more than two-thirds of the American people prefer to have their decision process be informed by the military, and only less than 10 percent, I think, or maybe 20 percent, said the Congress should set the military standards.

Here is an article by Bing West I noticed in the National Review in May. He has been to Iraq multiple times. He has written two books on the Iraq war. He said:

The new American military team has infused the effort with

energy and strategic clarity, and seized the initiative. In

this war, the moral/psychological element outweighs the

physical by 20 to 1.

I think there is a good bit of truth in that. I think we have seen a more coherent, focused strategy under General Petraeus's leadership.

With regard to his testimony and its truthfulness, I remember interviewing him before he was to testify in January, before being sent to Iraq, and he said: I will tell you one thing, Senator. I am going to tell you the truth as I see it if you send me there.

So the next morning I thought I would ask him that very question before the committee while he was under oath. I said:

You've indicated, I think, in your opening statement

[General Petraeus] that you would, but I'd like you to say

that so the American people would know that a person who

knows that country [Iraq], who's written a manual on

counterinsurgency--if you believe it can't be successful, you

will tell us so we can take a new action. That was my

question to him: Will you tell us if you think this will not

work? Because he told us and made the public statement our

effort in Iraq was difficult, but he did not think it was

impossible.

He replied to me this way:

Sir, I firmly believe that I have an obligation to the

great young men and women of our country who are putting

themselves in harm's way, and certainly to all Americans, to

tell my boss if I believe that the strategy cannot succeed at

some point.

I believe this man told us the truth today as he saw it and will tell us the truth before the Armed Services Committee tomorrow, as God gives him the ability to do so. He finished near the top of his class at West Point. He was No. 1 in his class at the Command and General Staff College. He has a Ph.D. from Princeton. He has been in combat. He has led one of the Army's finest combat divisions in combat. He has trained the Iraqi Army. He knows most of the Iraqi leaders pretty well because of his time there. We could not have a better person. We need to listen to him and then make our independent judgment after he testifies.

So I thank the Chair for this time. I hope all Americans will participate, as Congress should, in evaluating where we are today. Then, once we make a decision about what our next step will be, I would call on my colleagues to not do things that undermine the strategy once we have established it. Don't come up 2 weeks after we have voted on what to do and then say it is a failure. Let's don't do that this time. Let's agree to--no matter what it is, no matter how it comes out--have our debate and then our vote, and let's establish a policy and stick together and work hard to make it a success.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join with those who assert that working Americans are carrying too difficult a burden when it comes to health insurance, that the governmental supplements and assistance we provide to help people get health insurance are aberrational, unprincipled, counterproductive, bureaucratic, and often just unfair.

A person's health care is more dependent on where he or she works than anything else. If you happen to work for the Government, you are in pretty good shape. If you work for some big company, you are in good shape. But people live in fear that they might lose their job, and more than just losing their job, they may lose their health care. They don't like that. Families are worried about it. People sometimes refuse to take better jobs because of fears that they will lose their health insurance.

Prices are exceedingly high for people who are not part of big plans, Government programs and policies, and big company plans. That is just a fact. The same person can end up paying twice as much if they run a small business or work for a small business that doesn't provide insurance, and you cannot be guaranteed you will even get it. Sometimes the premiums are more than twice as much.

The President talked about this issue in his State of the Union Address when he talked about tax credits and ending the disparity we now have in health care. It is an absolute problem.

I was pleased to support the program offered by Senator Enzi, the small business health plans, the so-called associated health plans that would help small businesses to pool their resources and get cheaper rates. This could add 1 million people to our insured rolls without any increases in taxes.

We have a problem out there, we really do. So, sure, there is no doubt SCHIP is helping children in need, and there is no doubt our current system is not working fairly and something must be done to fix it. But just adding to this bureaucratic program without any principled fix in the abuses that are contained in it strikes me as very odd. I do not approve of it. I just do not approve of that at all.

It is a system that is brutal on the self-employed, brutal on the person who works for a small business that does not provide insurance. It is not legitimate, it is not right, and we absolutely need to do something to fix it. This odd program that came together some years ago was never, in my view, a particularly sound program. It is just maybe an attempt to fix something that won't work.

What we really need, if my colleagues want to know the truth, is a program to allow all Americans to have an insurance policy that is not dependent on where they work. We should allow them to pay tax-free dollars just like employers can. If they have lower income, the Government helps them make the premium payments and they keep that policy whether they are working or they are not working. They take it with them, and they are not being terrorized all the time by the fear of losing their health insurance.

We can do that. Senator Coburn has talked about this idea, I know, and Senator Corker, Senator DeMint all those who worked on this issue. The Department of Health and Human Services worked on it. We ought to be doing that. That is what we ought to be thinking about and talking about instead of putting new wine in old wine bottles, trying to reinvigorate a program that has some fundamental problems and, as I am going to point out, is unprincipled and counterproductive in a number of ways.

I believe we absolutely could have a portable plan of health insurance which would be something that would excite all Americans and make people feel so much more comfortable with their health insurance. That is what I would like to see us move to.

It is said that this is not an entitlement, but it is close to an entitlement. If we are not making needed reforms to preserve this benefit for those in need, why isn't it an entitlement? Who is going to cut and eliminate health care for children and those in need? We are missing an opportunity to have real reform now.

I know one can argue this case a lot of different ways, but I will just say, when we have my wonderful colleague, Senator Grassley, whom I admire so much and who is personally a very frugal person, saying: Well, this chart which Senator Gregg, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, produced showing that when it is

scored out here, there is no money for it after the fifth year, as if it is going to drop to virtually zero--we know that is not going to happen, and, in fact, Senator Grassley said we will have to find the money 5 years from now. But they wrote the bill in that way so it wouldn't score as costing as much as it is really going to cost. It is a gimmick. It is a classic gimmick, that is exactly what it is. It is a bit discouraging, I have to tell my colleagues, when I have a colleague I admire as much as Senator Grassley taking that position on the bill.

Let me ask a few questions about this legislation that point out some of the failures in principle and good policy.

If this is a children's health insurance program, why does it cover adults? There is no ``A'' in it; it is SCHIP; it doesn't say adults. Clearly, SCHIP has been abused by some States that have expanded the program to cover adults when the goal of the program from the beginning was to cover children. That is what people talk about. In fact, there are 670,000 adults participating in SCHIP. Some States are spending over half of their SCHIP money on adults, including adults without children. One-third of covered adults are not even parents.

One might say: Why do you care that the State has this program? Because the Federal taxpayers are paying 65, 70, 80 percent of it. It is a federally conceived program and substantially federally funded program.

Fourteen States provide health insurance through SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, for adults. The Government Accountability Office--that is our watchdog analysis group--reports that nearly 10 percent of SCHIP enrollees nationwide are adults. In Wisconsin, 66 percent of enrollees are adults. Seventy-five percent of the SCHIP funds are spent on adults, and we pay the bulk of that money. Sixty-one percent of the funds are spent on adults in Minnesota, where 87 percent of enrollees are adults, according to the Heritage Foundation. Illinois spends 60 percent of their money on adults; Rhode Island, 57 percent; and New Jersey, 43 percent.

This year, 13 percent of all SCHIP funds will go to adults who are not expectant mothers. About 30 percent of these adults are not even parents. Of the 14 States projected to spend more than they were given, allocated in 2007, 5 cover children not considered low income, and 5 cover adults other than expectant mothers.

The CMS goal and HHS goal was to end the adult waivers by 2009, but this bill basically blocks the ability for that to happen.

No. 2, I ask this question: If this program was created to help lower income children, why are some States covering middle- and high-income children and adults? Isn't this an indication that the program has gone far beyond what its original concept was? Isn't this typical of big Government programs, how they grow and take over more and more, and pretty soon become a Government-dominated system?

I don't think that is the way for us to go. Rich States are getting richer under this program. States are not stupid; they have figured out how to make the program work to their advantage. If they have the money, they make it work to their advantage, if they can make their match. The definition of low income, therefore, has been manipulated. The SCHIP statute defines a low-income child--this is what it says:

A child whose family income is at or below 200 percent of

the poverty line for a family of the size involved.

So it is supposed to be for, and was created in the fundamental statute to be for, those at or below 200 percent of poverty. I will talk about what that means in a minute. That is a pretty decent income, but we are going way above that. However, States are allowed to disregard parts of a family's income. They can just disregard it. These income disregards can mean, for example, that $50,000 of a family's income simply doesn't count, making many more children and adults eligible who are not low-income people.

New Jersey disregards all income between 200 and 350 percent of the poverty level. How do they do that? I am not sure. They got a waiver, apparently. Senator Allard presented an amendment to fix the problem of income disregards. It was defeated, of course. New Jersey just disregards the income between 200 and 350 percent of the poverty level.

Ten States and the District of Columbia now cover children in families with incomes of up to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. In those States, SCHIP provides health insurance for children in a family of four earning up to $61,950. That is a pretty good income. The program, in its current form, provides health insurance for children in those families. New Jersey has extended eligibility to $72,000 for a family of four--350 percent of poverty level. New York recently voted to extend eligibility to families of four earning up to $82,000--400 percent of poverty level.

This is supposed to be a program for the poor. It basically is a program for the poor in most States--it is in my State. Some legislative proposals on SCHIP would allow all States to expand SCHIP. Some of these proposals we are floating around here would allow all States to go to 400 percent of poverty level, which would make 71 percent of all American children eligible for public assistance through Medicaid or SCHIP.

This bill will allow New York to cover people at 400 percent of the poverty level. Now, the bill says 300 percent, and that is what they will say here on the floor, that it is 300 percent, but the grandfathered-in program covers New York, and they are at 400 percent, which means we will be subsidizing that.

Yes, I would be delighted. I hope I am wrong.

That do what?

I understand New York has passed a law that would do that.

It hasn't taken effect yet, but I understand they have passed it.

Yes.

My understanding is that under the current law, the Department of Health and Human Services believes it may have to grant that waiver, and nothing in this bill would prevent it; is that not correct?

Well, I will say this without doubt, Mr. President. Amendments have been offered, I believe already and will be offered, to make sure New York would not be able to get the 400 percent. Because the Federal taxpayers in my State of Alabama, where we provide SCHIP to children under 200 percent of poverty, we are going to be subsidizing that, and I don't see any reason for us to do that. But under this bill it can continue, if Health and Human Services is correct, and their lawyers tell them they can't deny this request.

I will agree they probably should have been more aggressive in denying some of these things and litigating, if need be.

I will do my best to answer the Senator's question.

I believe that is correct.

I believe so.

I know the distinguished committee chairman probably knows that pretty well.

That is correct.

Although as the days and years go by, less and less perhaps.

My understanding is the Senator is correct; that is, at least in Medicaid those rates, as you cover certain extras, you get a lower percentage rate. I am unsure of the exact details about how that is applied in SCHIP, but I understand there is a differential.

I would suggest to my colleague, though, that what we have done is created a system that incentivizes States to spend because they are getting a very substantial--65 to over 80 percent--match to cover things they wouldn't otherwise cover because it is money given gratis from the Federal Government; is that not correct?

Well, reclaiming the floor, the GAO did a study that criticized this aspect of Medicaid some time ago, and it made some news; that the net effect of all this is that, on a percapita basis, people in higher income States are getting more out of Medicaid than they are in poorer States, on a fairly substantial basis. They have criticized that policy. Some of those same policies based on that unprincipled approach to health care are at work in this bill.

Again, the Federal Government would pick up a substantial percentage of what New York may get if they go to 400 percent. But 350 and 300 percent is, I think, a bit much anyway. For example, about 70,000 upper-middle-class-income families who pay the alternative minimum tax would also qualify for SCHIP under this bill. The program, I think, as a matter of policy, encourages irresponsible spending.

Think about this: States who use up all their allotment, many of which obviously are those giving out their richest benefits, profit from States such as Alabama, who are very careful with their spending and stay within their allotments. In years past, if Alabama didn't use all the allotment given to them--and they have to match a portion of it to get that money--that money was redistributed to States who spent more. This is, I think, unfair and not good, sound policy. It has encouraged States to overspend while punishing States who have been conscientious about controlling spending.

Of the States which exceeded their allotment and that have asked for bailouts, adults accounted for 55 percent of those States' enrollees, according to the Government Accountability Office. Those States that have exceeded their allotment, that have reached back into the pool and have gotten more money, the GAO has found that about 55 percent of what they pay out goes to adults. Not to children--adults. This bill does not stop that in an effective way. It had an opportunity to, and it did not.

Of the 18 States projected to have shortfalls for 2007, 7 have SCHIP eligibility that is above 200 percent of the poverty level. So the 18 States who were projecting they were going to spend above their eligible amount, they are the ones that have the highest eligibility rate. Four of those States--Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey--are at or above 300 percent of the poverty level, so you are talking about subsidizing health care for a family of four earning $60,000 per year.

In addition to taking leftover money from fiscally responsible States such as Alabama, some States that have expanded their programs beyond the scope of the original program have asked the Government to bail them out with new money. In other words, there is not enough leftover money. Not enough leftover money now that they can scoop up from frugal States such as Alabama to take care of their spending, so now they are asking and demanding more money from the Federal Government to match whatever they want to do.

It is a classic example of an out-of-control Federal program running amok. I have to tell you that is not good policy.

Five States have taken 83 percent of Government bailout funding for 2006 and 2007, and 14 States received part of this funding. This is the extra money Congress has appropriated to fill their deficits. Only 5 States have gobbled up 83 percent of these funds, with 14 States receiving part of this funding. But out of $720 million, Illinois received $237 million, New Jersey $164, Rhode Island--small Rhode Island--$84 million--high-income State, that is--Maryland $31 million, and Massachusetts $77 million.

So it is the high-benefit, high-tax States that are sucking up money out of the fund, and they want more and more. This bill does not deal with that.

The bill only worsens the problem of States who are overspending as it creates a contingency fund. Now, the contingency fund is specifically designed to provide this additional funding to States that run out of money because they have covered too much and there is not enough Federal matching money for them. I think we better name this contingency fund the ``Federal Fund to Encourage SCHIP Overspending.'' Maybe that would be the right title for it.

As Secretary Leavitt has said, this section indicates that either the allocation formulas that determine how much money States get are wildly inaccurate or we do want States to overspend. It seems like that is our goal. That is why people are suggesting this is a subtle way to have the Federal Government take over a larger and larger portion of health care in America.

A further example of bad SCHIP policy is federally subsidizing infrastructure for States to develop government-sponsored universal health care. Many States, such as Pennsylvania and Vermont, have already begun the process of instituting a universal health care program. I think it is unfair to tax people in the frugal States to pay for rich health care plans for the wealthy in other States. That is not a good policy.

About 45 percent of American children are currently enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP, though only 37 percent are in families earning less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.

This is the third question I would ask. CBO estimates that about half of new SCHIP enrollees from this legislation now have private insurance. So my question is: Why would we spend taxpayers' money to insure people who are already insured? This bill would decrease private health insurance coverage. It would encourage people to leave their plans. It seeks to take kids away from private coverage and move them to government-run health care. Parents would be financially motivated to take their children off private, usually employer-sponsored plans, and put them on a taxpayer-supported plan. Those children would then have to be supported by the taxpayers; whereas, before they were covered by their own private insurance plan.

A recent report by CBO estimates that SCHIP has reduced the uninsured in the target population--those we wanted to reach who are uninsured, low-income children--by only 25 percent. That is the CBO saying that. The target group that was uninsured--low-

income children--we have reduced those uninsured by only 25 percent. I think this is because a lot of children now in SCHIP, and in many States adults, are people who used to be on private health plans. Between 50 percent and 75 percent of Medicaid expansion funds in the 1990s were spent on people who would have been privately insured, according to the economist Jonathan Gruber. That is a big number. I don't know if it is accurate, but that is what he concluded--between 50 percent and 75 percent of Medicaid expansion funds--were spent on people who would have been privately insured.

One study found that 60 percent of the children who became eligible for SCHIP had private coverage in the year before the SCHIP plan began. That is a stunning number; 60 percent of the children who became eligible for SCHIP had private insurance the year before. CBO found that among newly eligible populations--the higher income families who would be covered by this bill--one child will drop private coverage for every new uninsured child who is enrolled in the public program. That is a stunning number.

Overall, for every 100 children whom this bill would enroll in SCHIP, 50 of those children would come from private insurers. So half of the children we are going to be covering would be coming from private insurance plans. I don't think that is good policy, unless it is your goal to diminish private insurance and further take over the private sector with Federal plans.

These are conservative estimates, since the studies failed to calculate the crowd-out effect for adults who switched to Government plans. A recent study----

I will be pleased.

I did vote for that.

Responding to the question of the Senator, I do know that you, as one of the authors of that bill which I did support, did create provisions to minimize that and deliberately took steps to reduce the amount of crowd-out that would occur.

I am sure some would occur. Of course there was a feeling and observation on that from the beginning that this was a trend in the country.

I am not aware of that. I know my mother didn't have any coverage. She was glad to get the prescription drug benefits.

I am curious. I don't know.

That is not so much--

I am pretty close to the estimate.

I didn't. But I will respond by asking this question: If we have crowded out prescription drug coverage for seniors, if we crowd out private insurance in Medicaid for low-income people, if we crowd out regardless of income concerns in general Medicare, and if we now crowd out more children and even adults under a children's plan, who is going to be left in private coverage?

I would respond with this question: Isn't it true, if you are setting eligibility at 400 percent of poverty, or 350 percent, or 300 percent of poverty, you are going to crowd out more people with insurance than if you are actually taking care of poor people who are less likely to have insurance?

I thank the distinguished chairman for his insights. It has been a good dialog. I would go back, fundamentally, to the remarks I made at the beginning. Our present health care system is not working well. I believe a simpler system, if taken as part of the idea of equalizing tax deductions and tax credits for all Americans--and it would require spending from the Government to do that--if we did that in an effective way, every person could then choose their own insurance policy covering themselves as they wish. I think it would be a far more preferable way than taking a children's program and expanding it in a significant way.

There is no doubt. CBO has scored that for every child who is in this bill who would be enrolled in SCHIP, 50 percent of those children would come from private insurance coverage. That is a conservative estimate. It is a big deal. Fifty percent of the people who would be picked up under this plan would come from families where they are already covered.

The National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent group, estimates the crowd-out rate for SCHIP to be as high as 60 percent. Of 10 million children, about 50 percent of the children in families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line have insurance. This is the number for the lowest

income group. We would normally expect and do expect that higher income levels would have higher crowd-out effects. In fact, CBO--our own Congressional Budget Office--the one we have to rely on for information, estimates that 77 percent of the children in families at 200 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level already have private coverage. How about that? And 89 percent of children in families with incomes between 300 percent and 400 percent of poverty have private coverage, as do 95 percent of children in families above 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, according to our own Congressional Budget Office, which I assume our distinguished chairman does not disagree with. I mean he doesn't dispute those numbers.

Our goal should not be to take insurance away.

I will conclude. I know others are here prepared to speak. I have enjoyed the dialog.

I am not comfortable with the some of the ways we are proposing to take care of children and the way we are taking care of adults in a children's program and the way we are dealing with a broken Federal tax policy with regard to the uninsured. I was on a task force appointed by former majority leader Bill Frist, Dr. Bill Frist, to deal with the uninsured. We wrestled with it a number of ways. One of the ways we could have gotten a million people covered was through the association health plans, the small business health plans that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle managed to block.

Now we are moving more money, more, I guess, new wine in old wine bottles here. I think we need to break out of this mentality and create a system where you own your health insurance policy and you take it with you if you change jobs. I would note that the average American worker has had nine jobs by the time he or she is 35. Likewise, we ought to have savings accounts that people can take with them whenever they move from job to job and provide as much security and stability and assurance as we can possibly provide the working American families today.

Middle-class families are getting hit at both ends here. They are required to pay more taxes. They are not getting the benefits. They are working hard. If they are not working for a big company or the Government, they are paying a very high price for their health insurance.

We ought to work on these things, and if we did so, we might be surprised how many people might come on the insured rolls.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the requirements of fencing, additional Border Patrol agents, bedspaces for those who have been detained who come here illegally are not there as an end in themselves. Our goal-- our real goal--must be to create a change in the mindset of what is happening at the border, to reach that tipping point in which the world knows our borders are not wide open, that it is exceedingly difficult to penetrate them illegally and they are unlikely to be successful. As a result, we can move from the current situation--in which over a million people last year were arrested coming into our country illegally--and see those numbers drop off, to reach that tipping point, where the world knows that border is not open.

We have talked about it for all the 10 years since I have been in the Senate. Presidents have talked about it. They have campaigned on it. Members have talked about it. But we have not done anything about it. That is why the American people are not happy with us.

So I think this legislation will do some things of significance. It will fund 700 miles at the border and complete that process. Why it has taken as long as it has I am not sure, but work is being done right now, although not a lot has been accomplished so far. I am told that pretty soon we will see the fencing come up that we have authorized and that the work is continuing on. So it will be 700 miles. That is really progress, I have to say, but it is not the final installment. We are going to have to do more in the years to come. It is actual fencing, plus virtual fencing also.

So I am pleased we have made a concrete step forward with this funding. It will allow us, if the executive branch uses it wisely, to transform in a significant way the open border system we now have to a lawful system. That would be good for America in terms of creating a lawful system of immigration, and it will be good for the people who send us their money and expect us to do what we promise to do and that we actually get serious about it and start taking steps in that direction.

With regard to fencing, other countries use fencing significantly. Spain is constructing quite a lot of fencing on their African border. Other countries are doing so in the EU. Hong Kong has a border situation that they have dealt with through fencing. It is not anything unusual. It is the normal course when you have a wide open border because what happens is, a fence will multiply many times the effectiveness of a Border Patrol officer.

I ask my colleagues how you would be able to control hundreds of miles of border if you are just standing out there by yourself. If the person trying to come in knows they have to cross a fence, they will have a much harder time and be much easier to apprehend.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Would the Senator add me as a cosponsor?

Mr. President, I believe the pending amendment is the Dole amendment.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Dole amendment, No. 2442.

Mr. President, this second-degree amendment is a modest but important amendment. It would ensure that $2.5 million of the $51 million in this bill that is set aside for 287(g) training--and I will explain 287(g) training, but it is basically training of State and local law enforcement officers by Federal officials so that they can be of assistance to Federal officials----

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

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

Mr. President, I withdraw the second-degree amendment that I offered earlier, recognizing that there is some parliamentary question about it.

Mr. President, what I believe we should do, and the purpose of the amendment that I offered and am hoping we will be able to get accepted in some fashion, is modest, but it is an important step. It will require that $51 million be set aside in the underlying bill that is before us today for section 287(g) training; that is, training State and local law enforcement officers to be of assistance to Federal immigration officers, and that $2.5 million of the $51 million could be used to reimburse State and local training expenses.

Now, there are 65 pending training agreements out there right now, some of which are being executed and some of which are waiting to be executed. I would like to explain why I think this is important, fair, and commonsensical. It is something we should do.

Section 133 of the Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 is codified as section 287(g), the Immigration and Nationality Act, the INA, and it has commonly been known as the 287(g) program. Under this program, States and localities can ask the Department of Homeland Security to enter into a memorandum of understanding. That is like a treaty between the State and the Department of Homeland Security. They enter into these agreements.

The Presiding Officer, as a former U.S. attorney, knows how these MOUs are. They enter into these agreements, and the agreements essentially provide that their local law enforcement officers be cross- trained to work with Customs enforcement.

The program clearly has not expanded at the pace we originally envisioned, but the tide is beginning to turn as to these issues and how we deal with the problem of illegal aliens. So today the number of illegal aliens in the United States is a staggering number. It is estimated at between 10 million to 12 million, with another estimated 800,000 arriving in our country each year. Last year, we arrested over 1 million.

One solution to address the problem is to increase partnerships between Federal immigration authorities and State and local authorities through such programs as the 287(g) program. It is something I know a little bit about. I was a U.S. attorney in Alabama for 12 years. I was attorney general for 2 years, and I traveled around the State and met with local law enforcement officers as attorney general and as U.S. attorney. Since I have become a Senator, I have asked them about how things work if they apprehend somebody they believe to be illegally in our country.

Let me tell my colleagues what they tell me without virtually any exception, except as we are seeing through this 287(g) program. But, fundamentally, what they have been telling me is they let them go. That is not just true in Alabama; it is true all over America. Local law enforcement officials who apprehend people they have every reason to believe--maybe absolute proof--that they are here illegally routinely are allowing the people they apprehend--maybe it is DUI, maybe it is for an accident or whatever, a domestic dispute--whatever it is, they are letting them go because somehow they have gotten the message that nobody will come and pick them up, and they don't know how to do it or who to call and what the processes are. That is what the 287(g) program is designed to deal with.

Now, it has been odd to me since I have sought to do something about this for quite some time, well before the comprehensive immigration reform bill was introduced in this Senate over a number of years ago to deal with it, there is always an objection. It was out of that objection that I made the comment one time that people will vote for any kind of immigration reform, as long as it is a reform that would not work. If you produce something that will actually work and actually help the system get better and more lawful, somebody objects. It becomes a big deal. So I think this is a commonsensical thing.

Our State and local officers are in the best position on a daily basis to come in contact with those unlawfully present here. We don't have Federal ICE agents, immigration agents throughout the country. Border Patrol people are just on the border. If you can get past the border--and that is one of the attractions of trying to get past the border--if you can get past it, you have a pretty good chance of being home free for some time.

I think we have about 5,000 Federal ICE immigration agents inside our country, but only about 2,000 of those are actively involved in enforcement operations. We have 600,000 to 800,000 State and local law enforcement officers, sheriffs, police officers, State troopers. They are out there on the roads every day.

Now, this bill and the training it provides on a 287(g) does not train and does not ask that the State and local officers do anything they don't want to do. They will not be compelled to participate in anything they choose not to participate in. It is a voluntary participation agreement. They are not called upon to participate in conducting raids to try to identify and find people who might be here illegally. Our goal would be to provide a situation in which they could assist the ICE officers during the course of their ordinary duties. If they come upon someone likely to be an illegal alien, they would take the proper steps, after they have been trained, to identify whether they are, in fact, illegal and take the appropriate steps in

conjunction with ICE to handle it in the proper manner.

Because of an interest I had in it for some time, the State of Alabama, I am proud to say, became the second State in the Nation to enter into one of these agreements. Our Governor, Bob Riley, thought it was the right thing to do. He is an excellent Governor. He took steps to do it some years ago.

To date, we have trained 60 State troopers in 3 classes of 20 each, and the Federal Government trained these troopers at the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, AL. But let me tell my colleagues what happened to the State as a result of their partnership and willingness to assist the Federal Government. They have to pick up the costs of this training. Each class costs Alabama an average of $40,000, for a total of $120,000 in State money, all designed to help ensure that our State troopers are knowledgeable on all of the correct, fair, just, and legal ways to deal with illegal entrants into our country, and to be able to assist the Federal agents in doing their duties.

I think one reason we have seen a fairly slow expansion of the 287(g) program is the fact that it costs the States a bunch of money. Now we have $51 million set aside here in this program for training. But they are not paying any of it, apparently, as of this date to refund the States for their costs of training. It takes some number of weeks in this training--more than I think is justified. It is 6 weeks, my counsel tells me. It is 6 weeks that they have to go through a training program.

I have to tell my colleagues, if you go through any town in the country, whether it is Alabama or anywhere else, and you are a Senator, and you are speeding through that town and you are drunk, some 19-year- old, 20-year-old police officer can put you in jail, put your rear end in the Bastille. He doesn't have to have special training on how to arrest a Senator. But we are going to give special training to our local police officers on how to arrest somebody who is not even a citizen of the United States of America. That is what Homeland Security wants and that is what they believe. Six weeks, in my view, is too much, for heaven's sake. But they want 6 weeks of training and they make them cross designated and very intense partners in this program. But if you take a police officer off the streets for 6 weeks, that is a drain on the State and local police departments, and we ought to be able to compensate them some for it, in my view.

Let me tell you what happened in my State. It has been rather remarkable. In the first 18 months of operation, the Alabama MOU has resulted in the seizure of over $689,000 in cash in connection with criminal immigration offenses. Pretty good action there. As of last year, the training of those troopers had already resulted in 54 indictments, including those for illegal entry, false claims to citizenship, fraudulent documents, and visa fraud. It resulted in 33 convictions, including Social Security fraud, prior deported aggravated felons, and visa fraud. These are in Federal Court, not State court. You cannot try people in State court for immigration offenses. They are picked up by the Federal prosecutors and they have to meet some seriousness standard before they would actually be prosecuted in Federal Court.

In addition to those I mentioned, there are six Federal charges pending disposition, including aliens with firearms. There are 13 Federal charges pending indictment. So this is a matter that has the potential to help us identify those who are here illegally and those who may pose a threat to our country. It could well be that the next person planning an attack somewhere in the United States may be one of those picked up because, as we know, of the 18 hijackers, several of them were picked up--some more than once--by State and local officers. But they had no way to access or did not access the actual history of these individuals to find out whether they were here legally and might otherwise be subject to arrest. If that had occurred and our system had worked effectively, it is conceivable that the case could have been broken before 9/11 occurred.

The 9/11 Commission did point out that we need to do a far better job in this area. The 9/11 Commission recommended we implement State and Federal training and law enforcement cooperation and enhance that ability. That was one of their firm recommendations. We have not done that to any significant degree at this point.

The first State to be accepted with an MOU was Florida. They also have a history of an effective program under 287(g). The ICE program provides local law enforcement with comprehensive training and, once certified, the officers remain basically under ICE's supervision under all matters relating to immigration. To address concerns voiced by immigrant interest groups, Federal, State, and local enforcement have engaged in significant outreach efforts with local immigrant communities and have not engaged in sweeps for undocumented aliens.

One of the greatest testaments to the success of a program is that in no instance has a complaint been filed against law enforcement officers as a result of the actions under this memorandum of understanding. It has gone extremely well without the kind of complaints that people have suggested might happen, and it has been an asset to the Federal Government and should be continued. It is already part of our law. We have provisions that allow for it. We have money set aside--$51 million in one area and $5 million in another area--but we don't have provisions to help the States defray the cost of their training.

Now, I will remind my colleagues of some of the objective reports since 9/11 that are important to us. One is the Hart-Rudman report. The report is entitled ``America Still Unprepared--America Still in Danger.'' They found that one problem America still confronts is that ``700,000 local and State police officers continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist watchlists.'' The first recommendation of the report was to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.''

On page 19, the report specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens living in the United States. They suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 local, county, and State law enforcement officers if they can be brought out of the information void.

The final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, the 9/11 Commission, released in the summer of 2004, also recognized the important role of State and local law enforcement officers in immigration law enforcement. Again, let me remind you, we have only a couple of thousand actively engaged Federal investigators inside our country to actually enforce immigration law. So how do we expect to intercept some of the individuals who may be plotting this very moment to attack? They may be here with false documents, or they may have gotten into the country legally and overstayed. How are we going to find them if we don't welcome the participation of State and local law enforcement officers? In the 9/11 Commission report, the section titled ``Immigration Law and Enforcement,'' the Commission found this:

[T]oday, more than 9 million people are in the United

States outside the legal immigration system.

Some say it is 12 million, but they say more than 9. Nobody can dispute that. They continue:

There is a growing role for State and local law enforcement

agencies. They need more training and work with Federal

agencies so they can cooperate more effectively with those

Federal authorities. . . .

To achieve that necessary collaboration, we must first clarify the authority delegated to each level of law enforcement and make it clear that State and local officers have authority to and are welcome to participate actively in the enforcement of immigration law.

My amendment will do that. It is something that is overdue, and we should do it. I remain a bit baffled by the objections that continue to be raised on this. I had occasion last year to participate with my chief counsel, who is here with me--Cindy Hayden--to prepare a law review article for the Stanford Law Review on the question of the authority of State and local law enforcement officers. It is somewhat complex, but it is not disputed that State and local law enforcement have the authority to detain people who

have come into our country illegally across our borders. They cannot prosecute them. They can detain them only for a reasonable period of time. They have to turn them over to Federal agencies. But they are able, with regard to criminal immigration offenses, to conduct such detentions as a complement to and as a part of their historic ability to assist in the enforcement of existing Federal law--and, indeed, citizens can make citizen arrests for violations in some instances. This has been a part of the law.

What is somewhat confused is that we have perhaps 40 percent of the people enter into our country legally, but overstay. Maybe that large a percentage of our illegal population are visa overstays. The Court of Appeals in California--our Nation's clearly most liberal, the Ninth Circuit--concluded that local officers do not have the authority to detain those visa overstayers. If you break across the border, that is clearly a criminal offense and detention can be had for that, they say, but not for the others. Two other circuits--the Tenth and Fifth--seem to indicate otherwise.

The Department of Justice did a memorandum at one point that said there was not authority for the detention of people in our country who have not committed criminal violations of immigration law. Then that opinion was withdrawn. So the matter is confusing. There was an article in the Washington Times newspaper about it yesterday. The article quoted one of the people as saying there are gray areas here. There was an article in the Huntsville, AL, newspaper about a meeting with the police and the lawyers and the city council about what they could do to participate in the enforcement of laws with regard to those in our country illegally. The lawyers told them there is some confusion there.

Well, it is not hard for us to clear up that confusion. The House of Representatives tried to do it in their first bill last year, so they made it a felony to overstay and enter the country illegally. That resulted in an uproar and people saying we are going to make felons of them and that was awful, so there was a big retreat from that. We have to figure out the best way to proceed with it.

My view is two things need to occur. We need better training of our State and local law enforcement that goes into their existing power so they know what they are able to do and they don't overreach; second, we need to pass legislation. But this is an appropriations bill and we cannot legislate on an appropriations bill. We are not able to offer an amendment that would change or would clarify what the powers of the local law enforcement are.

We should make it quite clear that they have the power to detain anyone in our country illegally. They can detain a Governor. They can detain a mayor. They can detain a Senator. Why can't they detain somebody who is not a citizen and is in the country illegally?

What do the American people think about this? Americans strongly value our heritage as a nation of immigrants. Americans openly welcome legal immigrants and new citizens. They value the character, the ability, the decency, and the strong work ethic of so many of those who have come to our country. However, it is also clear that Americans do not feel the same way about those who violate our laws. The fact is, a large majority feel that State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in stopping illegal immigration.

A Roper poll titled ``Americans Talk About Illegal Immigration'' found that 88 percent of Americans agree and 68 percent strongly agree that Congress should require State and local government agencies to notify INS, now ICE, and their local law enforcement when they determine that a person is here illegally or who has presented fraudulent documentation.

Additionally, 85 percent of Americans agree and 62 percent strongly agree that Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and law enforcement agencies to apprehend and turn over to the INS illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact.

So this amendment I have offered is far less reaching. Those numbers speak volumes about the instincts and the understanding of the American people about the enforcement of laws in America.

It is important to note that these responses were collected in response to questions about requiring State and local law enforcement action. The amendment I have offered does not require that, although it is mightily frustrating to see cities and certain jurisdictions open, call themselves sanctuary bodies, and assert to the whole world that not only will they not help in any way to enforce the law but will, in fact, not cooperate with the enforcement of Federal laws in their jurisdiction. To me that is inexcusable. It is an affront to our history as a lawful society, and I am troubled by it.

Again, the first step is we should do a better job of training local and State law enforcement officers, and, second, we should clarify their jurisdiction. If we do not do that, I don't think we are very serious about bringing under control illegal immigration in America.

I did offer a second-degree amendment earlier, and I withdrew it. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify Senator Dole's amendment to include the language I proposed.

I thank the Chair and thank Senator Murray.

I do feel strongly about this issue. We have talked about it for quite a number of years. It is time for us to get this matter settled and fixed. It is overdue. I look forward to working with the Senator.

I thank the Chair. I see other Senators have arrived.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts on the Graham-Gregg-McConnell amendment that has been offered this morning and to support it. It is the Border Security First Act. It includes actual funding which would be emergency funding. I think this is justified.

I know my colleague, Senator Gregg, is a former chairman of the Budget Committee. He is very astute and alert that we do not abuse emergency funding, and he believes this is a justified emergency--and I do too. In other words, how much longer can we continue to have lawlessness at our borders? This bill would go a long way in fixing that. Certainly, every aspect of the bill, I believe, is a positive step in returning us to a lawful system of immigration in America.

One reason actually funding this project, these efforts, through this bill and through emergency spending is so important is because we have a history of promising things and not doing them. Not this year but last year the bill came forward in the Judiciary Committee to comprehensively reform immigration. I realized we had a shortage of border enforcement officers, Border Patrol, and I offered an amendment to do that as part of that authorization bill, that immigration reform bill. It was readily accepted.

I offered an amendment that added bed spaces, and it was readily accepted, because I knew we needed more if we were going to be effective.

I offered more funding to train State and local law enforcement. It was accepted.

I offered amendments on fencing which were accepted as well--at least some of them. More on the floor were accepted.

Then I had an insight that hit me. That insight was that when we pass an authorization, what occurs is we authorize certain legal changes. Those legal changes take place at once. For example, the guaranteed path to citizenship in that immigration bill--it passed, it became law, it was guaranteed, it would happen no matter what. But I realized it was real easy for my colleagues to agree to things that involved enforcement that required money, real dollars, to carry out because I realized they may have no intention of seeing that effort be funded. Or, if they did have an intention to see it funded, there are so many steps, hurdles, and loopholes to go through before it is ever funded it may never get funding because it would have to go through the appropriators and they would have to appropriate the money.

To authorize money for a fence is not to build a fence. That is the point. You have to appropriate some money to build a fence. That was the gimmick, I believed all along, and that led to a suggestion I made about having a trigger. Senator Isakson went into that in some depth and offered the amendment to have a trigger. The trigger said: Before any of these other law changes about amnesty or legalization of those here illegally could occur, some other things had to happen first. If you didn't spend the money on the others, this would never happen. There was a trigger. That was a good idea, it was. It dealt with the problem we were dealing with.

There is cynicism that is out there because of what happened in 1986. Let's be honest about it, what happened in 1986 was amnesty occurred. They didn't deny it was amnesty. They were giving people legal residence and path to citizenship in 1986. But they promised to do the things necessary to create a lawful system in the future and that it would not happen again. Three million people in 1986 were provided amnesty. But as we all know, the promises were never fulfilled. We did not create a lawful system of immigration. We did not do the things necessary to enforce our laws at the border. As a result of that, we now have 12 million people illegally in our country. Right? That is what happened. There is no mystery about this. This is actually fact.

We had this bill that came up, the so-called comprehensive reform bill. I absolutely believe it did not get us there. That is why I opposed it. I made up my mind I was not going to participate in a legislative process that would tell our people of America, and my constituents, we were going to create a lawful system in the future, if we were not going to do it. That is why a number of people suggested we should have a border security first bill. That is what the House of Representatives said last year. They said they were not even going to consider our bill because they believed we ought to prove to the American people we could create a lawful system of immigration first.

In this amendment, Senator Gregg and Senator Graham and Senator Kyl and McConnell--many of those who had supported the comprehensive reform--are saying let's get some credibility with the American people. I thank them for that. I believe this is a step in the right direction.

Senator Graham and Senator Gregg--we discussed it recently with members of the press and they made the point: The American people want to see we are serious about what we promise first. That is why they support that.

For example, this legislation would fund 23,000 border agents. The bill that is on the floor today, the basic Homeland Security bill, would fund a little less than 18,000 agents. We need more agents. We have to get to that tipping point. We don't need a whole unlimited number of agents. In my opinion, somebody who has been involved in law enforcement most of my career, I believe we can get to a point where the word is out worldwide that our borders are not wide open, and if you come to the United States, you are likely going to be caught, unless you come legally. If we do, we could see a substantial reduction in the number of people attempting to come here illegally. But we have to get other agents out there to get to that point--so 23,000 would help a lot. It is more than this bill has in it.

Another thing you have to have is detention beds. In other words, if you arrest someone for illegally entering our country, if you are in a position where they are released on a promise to come back for some proceeding because you do not have a prison bed, a detention bed in which to put them, they do not show up. We have examples of the catch- and-release policy, where 95 percent of the people released on bail on a promise to come back for their hearing didn't show up--surprise, surprise. They were willing to come to the country illegally. Who thinks they are going to show up legally to be deported? How silly is that? It was an indication to me and the American people that this Government was not serious about immigration. We were not serious. Any government that allows such a silly, worthless, no-good policy as that is not serious about it.

So this bill would add detention beds. The underlying bill is at 31,000. This would take us to 45,000. Hopefully, that will take us to that tipping point, so then we can say to a person who has been apprehended: We are not going to release you, we are going to hold you until you are deported. Sometimes it is difficult, if they are from foreign countries, distant countries, not our border countries, to get them back to their countries. It takes some time to get a plane or a boat to ship them out.

Another thing that is a part of this--certainly, if we are serious about immigration, one of the things we want to do is welcome legitimate help from our State and local law enforcement agencies. There are only a few thousand Federal immigration agents inside the United States--not at the border, I mean inside the United States. There are 600,000-plus State and local law enforcement agents. They basically have been blocked from being able to participate in any way.

There is, however, a program called a 287(g) provision that gives training to State and local officers so they don't mess up, and they treat everybody exactly properly and help in an effective way to partner with Federal officers to enforce immigration laws.

If you don't want immigration laws enforced, you don't want the 600,000 State and local law officers participating. See? If you don't want the law enforced, you don't want these people to participate in any way because right now we only have several thousand

Federal agents--not on the border, inside the whole United States of America. The only people we can rely on would be voluntary State and local support.

What we learned in Alabama, my home State, we trained 60 State troopers in this program. It took far too long, in my view. The State had to pay their salaries. It cost the State of Alabama $120,000 to be a partner with the Federal Government to enforce laws that they have authority to enforce--but to enforce laws of the Federal Government on an issue, immigration, that should be primarily a Federal responsibility.

This bill, the amendment that was offered, this border security first amendment, would provide some grant programs to enable more States to participate in this program.

It also funds--actually puts the money out to fund the fence. We have had a half dozen votes on the fence, and it has still not been built. They are building some now, they say. They are doing some. But it is still not on track to be completed, and it is not funded according to what we voted. We voted to build 700 miles of fencing. The underlying legislation, this appropriations bill, only funds 370 miles. That is not what we voted to do.

You see what I am saying? It is one thing to authorize and vote to do something. We all go back home and we are so proud: I voted to build a fence. But nobody ever comes around to provide the money to actually do it. So this bill would fund that.

On the question of our local facilities to apprehend people for serious crimes, people who are in the country illegally, who are subject to being deported as soon as they are released from jail occurs--under current law, that is not working well at all.

This bill would allow local facilities, detention facilities, to detain them for up to 14 days, to give the Federal Government the right to do that, to get them deported, as they should be, if they committed felonies in the United States.

Last September, 80 Senators voted to build 700 miles of fencing along our border. Ninety-four Senators voted for the amendment I offered for $1.8 billion to be appropriated. It eventually got reduced in conference to $1.2 billion to build the fence we said we were going to build. This bill, the underlying bill, calls for an additional $1 billion toward construction of the fencing. But that is not enough. The Gregg-Graham-Kyl amendment would provide the money sufficient to do that and get us on the right track.

I will mention briefly a couple of other things in the legislation that I strongly favor. Senator Graham has advocated previously that we need to have penalties for people who come back into the country illegally. I mean, how silly is it to have persons enter the country illegally, you apprehend them, you do not prosecute them, you do not put them in jail--you could, because it is a crime--and you deport them, and here they are the next week, or even the next day coming back into the country. You have got to, at some point, if you are serious about law, have a penalty extracted.

So this bill would require penalties for people who reenter a second time, at least, in our country illegally. Certainly that is a good step, but it is not happening today. There is a deal going on among certain judges, and it has gotten to be a real problem for our immigration enforcement system. That is, local State judges, if they have an individual who is about to be deported, often will cut the sentence and not make it the required sentence, and that would obviate their deportation from the country for being convicted of a felony. This would keep judges from going back and manipulating the criminal justice system to try to prevent a result that should naturally occur in the future.

It has institutional removal program funding. This is important as a practical matter. It does not work to wait until a person has completed their jail time for a serious criminal offense, and then have the Federal Government start up a proposal to deport them. They run away; they do not show up to be deported. It is so obvious that that is happening. So we have a program, the institutional removal program, that does allow the Federal Government to take those people before they are released from jail and do the paperwork and commence the hearing so at the time of their departure, they are released into State prison for the serious offense they have committed, they would directly be deported. That only makes sense. We are doing some of that now, and this bill would provide extra money for that.

In every aspect of the legislation, it is a step in the right direction. It does not get us there if the executive branch or if the Government does not want to enforce these laws. It does not get us there if the House or conferees fail to put this money in the bill. There are still a lot of loopholes. We should not pat ourselves on the back. But these are all critical steps toward creating a lawful immigration system. If we can do that and regain some confidence among the American people, we will be able to talk about many more of the issues in favor of that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, for the first time, on the question of Judge Southwick's ruling, the Senator's remarks make clear to me that he was required as a judge, as I understand it, to not reverse the administrative panel's opinion unless it was arbitrary and capricious, I believe is what the Senator said.

It seems to me that sometimes we make a mistake, and I was going to ask the Senator a question, as one of the most able lawyers here in this body for sure, about whether he thinks sometimes we ascribe to the judge who has to rule on a case following the law, that somehow we would suggest he may have approved this racial slur even though he may have ruled in a way different from that?

In other words, does the Senator think we ought to be careful in this body not to unfairly suggest that the judge approved this racial slur, which I know he did not, as a result of that ruling?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his effort and the time it takes to be able to examine the complexities of this situation. Most of us are too busy to do it. You do indeed have a passion for the truth, and you have done well in getting there, and I thank you for sharing those thoughts with us.

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

Mr. President, I filed earlier a number of amendments. I want to talk about some of those and why I think that they are important. I am pleased to say many of them have been included, all or in part, in the Graham-Gregg-Kyl-McConnell amendment that I have cosponsored. I think, in effect, it represents a positive step to creating a lawful system of immigration, which I believe we owe to the American people. They expect that.

What good is it for us to pass new ideas, new laws, and new provisions concerning immigration if they will not be enforced any better than those we have had before? That is the real rub, the real problem we have. That was my fundamental concern and objection to the comprehensive bill that failed to pass a few weeks ago. It would not have done the job, it would not have been effective, and it did not accomplish what we need to accomplish.

I want to share some ideas about the amendments that I have offered and why they are important. I believe Senator Kyl said that we have broad bipartisan support for this. There was some belief that if enforcement amendments are passed, then some people would never confront the other aspects of immigration that others believe need to be confronted. I think the truth is that people tried to hold hostage enforcement in order to gain support for a new idea of immigration, and an amnesty, or a legalization process that the American people didn't agree to. It didn't work. So let me share a few thoughts that I think are important with regard to having a good legal system for our borders.

First, we have to have more barriers, more fencing. The funding for the fencing that we asked for--the 700 miles of fencing--would be included in the amendment that has been proposed, offered, and called up. That is a good step in the right direction. I will offer separately an amendment asking the GAO--our Government Accountability Office--to analyze the cost. The cost factor that I have heard is about $3.2 million per mile for the fence. That exceeds my best judgment of how much that I think it ought to cost to build a fence based on my experience of building a fence in the country in the past. Fences usually do not cost millions of dollars but, this fence on the border is going to cost a lot of money. Yes, we need a lot of fencing on the border, and maybe double and triple fencing in some areas. We need high-tech cameras, and that will run the cost up. But sometimes you get the impression that the people who don't believe in fencing are running the cost up so high that maybe the American people will change their mind about the fence. We know the fence at San Diego was a great success. People on both sides of the border appreciate it. What was a rundown, crime-prone area on both sides of the border in San Diego is now making economic progress, and illegal immigration and crime in that sector is way down. Putting up a strong fence is the right thing for us to do and we must do it if we are serious about enforcement.

I ask for commonsense purposes, tell me how we can have enough border agents to cover 1,700 miles for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Are they just going to stand out there all day and all night? We need barriers that will multiply the Border Patrol officer's capability to respond in an effective way to

apprehend those who break into the country.

Through a combination of these efforts, we can get to the point where we go from an open border to a border that people understand to be closed, and, as a result, we could see a reduction in the number of people who attempt to come into our country illegally.

I am pleased that a good part of the State and local law enforcement provisions I have provided for will be included in the amendment. I am pleased that a good part of the National Guard provisions I have offered, including continuing Operation Jump Start, will be included, and the criminal alien provisions dealing with removing those aliens who have been convicted of crimes are deported.

I am pleased that we are moving towards ensuring that illegal entrants will be prosecuted when they come into the country illegally. This can be done by expanding the Del Rio, TX, zero-tolerance policy to other areas of our border so that illegal aliens who come across the border are not just met and greeted, given free meals, and taken back home, but actually are convicted of the crime that they committed when they came across the border illegally. We have seen good results from that program. And there are some other provisions that are important.

I have filed three amendments dealing with the fence. The first deals with a GAO study of the cost of the fencing. We need to know how much money has been spent thus far--there is a lot of confusion out there-- how much fencing is now in place after all the money we have spent, how much it is costing and will cost the American taxpayers in the future, and whether there are better techniques and procedures by which we can build more fencing for less cost faster without significantly sacrificing quality. That is what that study would include. The Government Accountability Office regularly evaluates those kinds of issues, and I believe they will give us a valuable report that will help us in the future.

A second amendment calls for full funding of the fencing.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 that I offered, which was signed into law, requires 700 miles of fencing. This amendment which I offered would fully fund the 700 linear miles of southern border fencing required by providing $1.548 billion to be used for the construction of topographical mile 371 through 700. That is what the law requires.

The Congressional Research Service and the Department of Homeland Security have told us that 700 linear miles in the act will actually require more miles topographically; so the 700 linear miles becomes close to 854 topographical miles. So my amendment will fund the remaining 484 topographical miles of fencing not currently funded for construction by December 31, 2009.

I have drafted this amendment in two ways. One is to be paid for with an across-the-board cut, and the other is designated as emergency spending.

If we are able to adopt the amendment offered earlier today by Senator Graham and others, perhaps that will go a long way to solving the problems I have raised, but, in fact, we could go further and should go further.

My next set of amendments addresses State and local law enforcement's ability to assist Federal law enforcement. My amendment allows for some of the grant moneys appropriated by the bill to go for State and local training exercises, technical assistance, and other programs under the law. This would be a pot of up to $294 million to be used to reimburse State and local expenses related to the implementation of the INA section 287(G) agreements.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, State and local governments can sign memorandums of understanding--they are referred to as MOUs in the Government. When two foreign nations do it, they call them treaties. It is about as complex. MOUs are important--with the Department of Homeland Security to have their law enforcement officers trained to work with DHS and to enforce immigration law. That is how State and local people work together. My amendment encourages State and local governments to seek out these agreements and participate in them. The Federal Government needs to welcome State and local law enforcement's assistance at every opportunity, not discourage it.

Alabama was the second State, I am pleased to say, in the Nation to sign such an agreement. We have trained 3 classes of approximately 20 State troopers each for a total of 60 State troopers who are now ``cross-designated'' to work with the immigration agency, ICE. Each class cost the State of Alabama about $40,000. The State of Alabama had to pay to train their officers in this fashion so they could participate with the Federal Government. They have spent about $120,000 to date to help the Federal Government enforce Federal immigration laws. I think we can do better. We should encourage State law enforcement officers, and we should help fund this partnership program. I have no doubt in my mind that is the right way.

Then I have an amendment that affirms State and local authority and expands of the immigration violators files in the National Crime Information Center, that is not in the Gregg amendment. My amendment would reaffirm the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to assist the Federal Government in the enforcement of immigration laws.

Confusion among the circuit courts, particularly dicta in a Ninth Circuit decision that appears to be somewhat contradictory to the Fifth and Tenth Circuits, is involved. That has led to a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion that questioned some powers of State and local law enforcement. And then the Department of Justice withdrew that opinion. So there is uncertainty--the Presiding Officer knows how uncertain it can get involving the prosecution of cases in multiple jurisdictions--about what the power of local law enforcement is to participate in helping to enforce immigration laws.

The issue is very real. Just today in the Washington Times, there is an article about it. The article is entitled ``Virginia eyes plan to deport illegals. Panel suggests a statewide policy.'' It is being discussed all over the country. They say in that article:

Other areas, such as the role of local and State police

officers in enforcing immigration law, are more ambiguous. It

is not clear what the State's role is in enforcing

immigration law, Mr. Cleator said.

He is senior staff lawyer for the Virginia State Crime Commission. He said it is not clear what the State role is, and there is some ambiguity, less than most people understand, but there is a perception of ambiguity, and there is some ambiguity. That is why my amendment is needed and important.

My amendment will place additional information in the National Crime Information Center's immigration violators file so that critical information on final orders of removal, revocation of visas, and expired voluntary departure agreements can be readily available to State and local law enforcement officers. They need that information so they can make the right decisions when they apprehend somebody going about their normal business on matters such as speeding and the like.

The National Crime Information Center is the bread-and-butter database of local law enforcement, and they need this information properly inputted into that computer center because the State law officers will be the ones routinely coming into contact with unlawful and deported aliens during the course of their normal duties, such as a DUI charge. They want to know something about them, and the information is not being readily placed in that computer.

Everybody knows that virtually every law enforcement officer in America who stops somebody for an offense--such as DUI, theft, burglary, robbery--runs the suspect's name in the National Crime Information Center, and this is done to determine whether there are pending charges against the suspect, whether the suspect had been convicted of other crimes or if other charges will require that the suspect be held in addition to the charge for the original stop. This is done every day through tens of thousands of inquiries to NCIC. I have discovered that they are not putting a sufficient amount of the immigration violation information in NCIC. We have to do that if we want that a lawful system of immigration to work. If someone doesn't want lawful immigration to work then they will not put that immigration violators' information in NCIC.

Another issue I have raised is Operation Jump Start. This deals with National Guard funding through the end of the year 2008 and improvement in the rules of engagement. There is funding in the Gregg amendment for this matter, but it did not include rules of engagement language.

My amendment, and a similar amendment filed by Senator Kyl for another bill, provides the funding, which is $400 million, needed to keep the current National Guard presence of 6,000 guardsmen on the southern border through the end of 2008. The administration's plan is to reduce those forces by half--down to 3,000--by September 2007. So by next summer, they want to have those numbers in half. The National Guard is working to deter illegal border crossings. They are big making a difference there. They are also helping us create the impression that our border is no longer open, that it is closed and it is not a good thing for someone to try to come across it illegally. Removing the National Guard members when they have been so successful would be premature.

If we take all these actions and keep the National Guard at the border, we can help reach that tipping point that I referred to earlier.

In addition, my amendment will allow the National Guard members to have a greater role in stopping illegal aliens along the border. National Guard members should be permitted to aid in the apprehension of illegal aliens crossing the border, at least until a Border Patrol agent comes on the scene. Today, they are only permitted to use nondeadly force for self-defense or the defense of others. So they cannot apprehend illegal aliens that they see crossing the border because they cannot use force unless it is to defend themselves or others. The rules of engagement prevent them from effectively apprehending illegal aliens. My amendment will allow those brave and effective National Guard members to apprehend illegal border crossers until the Border Patrol officer can come to their location.

Another big deal is that we want to make sure criminal aliens are deported. In effect, this language in the amendment I will offer and filed is included in the Gregg amendment. It deals with this problem. The American people understand the need to deport aliens, legal and illegal, who have committed crimes in the United States, crimes that make them deportable. We have laws that say that if you are here in a nonpermanent status and you commit a crime, then you are to be deported; nonpermanent status means that you do not have legal permanent status or citizenship in America. And one of the conditions of that admission is that you don't commit crimes. That is not too much to ask. That is our standard. Most countries have a similar standard.

And criminal aliens should be deported, as a matter of policy, at the end of their State or local criminal sentences. They should not be allowed to slip through the cracks and be released back into society. That is not what our laws call for, but it is happening every day.

Additionally, State court judges should not be allowed to vacate convictions or to remit sentences for the purpose of allowing the alien to escape the immigration consequences of their crimes. Those events that criminal aliens are not being deported and that some criminal aliens are avoiding the immigration consequences of their crimes are of great concern to the American people and Border Patrol agents who are out there working their hearts out.

So my amendment will double the funding--$300 million--that DHS has for the institutional removal program, a program that allows DHS to identify criminal aliens while they are in jail serving State and local sentences. Once they have been identified, they go through the paperwork, and the administrative removal process can be completed while they are in jail. This allows the criminal alien to be put directly into the Department of Homeland Security's custody at the end of their prison term, so that they can be quickly deported.

My amendment expands the criminal alien program by directing that the Secretary of DHS implement a pilot project to evaluate technology to automatically identify incarcerated illegal aliens before they are released. Manpower alone won't get this job done. But if we start correctly with technology, we can make great progress. It can be a big improvement in our current system.

In addition, my amendment ensures that when a criminal alien commits a crime, then the original conviction and sentencing will stand when DHS has determined whether the alien is deportable based on their crimes. This ensures that the trial judge's decision to change the sentence or the judgment of conviction won't be able to undermine the immigration impact of the original judgment.

Madam President, we have a real problem. We have a situation in which 27 percent of the persons in the Federal and State penitentiaries are foreign born--this is an amazing number to me--and they are there for crimes other than immigration--for drugs, fraud, sexual abuse, violent crimes. Large numbers of them--the majority of them--are persons who are not citizens. They have been involved in crimes of a serious nature, and they should be deported when they complete serving their sentence for those crimes. That is what is not occurring.

In fact, we have at this moment, we believe, some 600,000 absconders. These are people who have been apprehended and ordered deported, who are told to report for deportation, or similar orders, and have just simply absconded into the country and never shown up. That is a huge number of illegal aliens that we could eliminate, or reduce, if we could handle this process of taking care of their deportation as soon as they have finished their criminal time in jail.

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have implemented a zero tolerance policy at the Del Rio sector of the border. This policy makes sure that every illegal alien is prosecuted for their illegal entry into the United States. It is a misdemeanor for the first offense. It is a criminal offense, but it is a misdemeanor for the first offense of coming into our country illegally. This policy has decreased illegal entry into the Del Rio sector by 58 percent.

Now, when you consider that last year we arrested 1 million people attempting to enter our country illegally, you get an understanding of what a 58-percent reduction in illegal entries means when that kind of policy is enacted. Though there are nine border sectors, Del Rio is the only one that has such a policy. My amendment would expand the success of the Del Rio project to the two border sectors with the highest crossing rates--Tucson, AZ, and San Diego, CA.

My amendment also requires that until a zero tolerance policy is fully in place, the Department of Homeland Security must refer all illegal entries along the Tucson-San Diego sector to the respective U.S. Attorneys' Offices for prosecution. The U.S. Attorneys' Offices must then provide a formal acceptance or declaration of that prosecution request, which would then allow a record so that Congress can know what all is happening--whether additional resources are needed to fully implement this highly effective policy along the entire border. I think that is a good step in the right direction.

Also, Madam President, we have the question of affidavits of support and their lack of use and my amendment deals with that. Since 1997, most family-based and some employment-based immigrants have to have, and do have, a sponsor that guarantees the immigrant will not become a public charge. In other words, they are admitted into the country, but only on the condition that if they have financial needs, this sponsor will take care of that, not the taxpayers of the United States. That is a legitimate condition, I submit, to place on entrance into the United States.

So the sponsor would enter into a contract with the Federal Government, promising to pay back any means-tested public benefits the immigrant would receive. There are some exceptions--medical assistance, school lunch, Federal disaster relief.

To my knowledge, the Federal Government has never gone after sponsors to ensure they follow through on the commitment they have made. My amendment will require a study to be done by the Government Accountability Office to determine the number

of immigrants with signed affidavits of support that are receiving or have received Federal, State, and local benefits when those immigrants really are not eligible and should have turned to their sponsors for support. A GAO study is needed to determine how much revenue the Federal Government could collect if they enforced these contracts and insisted that the individual who sponsored the person into the country actually pays what they are supposed to pay.

We need to preserve means-tested public benefits for those who are truly needy. We don't have enough money to take care of all the people in our country and shouldn't have to take care of people when they have a sponsor who promised to take care of them and promised that the sponsors would pay back the money for any benefits that the immigrants received.

So those are some of the amendments I offered. There is much that we can do to make our system of immigration at the border more effective. I would just cite that it is a matter of national security. We absolutely know that we have many people who simply want to come to America to work and don't want to cause any attack on the United States, and they are good people. They simply would like to make more money, which is available in the United States, than if they stay in their home country. But we also know that since we are not able to accept everyone who would like to come to America, we have to have rules about who can come and who cannot come and those we let come have to obey our laws.

One of the first and toughest rules should be that we don't allow people to come here who are terrorists, or have terrorist connections that could threaten our country.

Next, we need to ask ourselves how many persons should come in legally, and under what conditions, what kind of skills and abilities and education level and language skills they should have. That should be part of a good and effective immigration policy.

I will just say, however, that any such rules are absolutely worthless if we have a wide open system where people come across illegally on a regular basis and they know they have a high probability for success to come here illegally. Indeed, we know they do because we have about 12 million people here illegally.

So those are some steps I suggest we can take that will improve our legal system. I am pleased that a number of those will be included in the Gregg-Graham amendment and will not require a separate vote.

I hope we will take this responsibility seriously. I see no reason we should not undertake the actions that I have suggested, which have bipartisan support in the Congress. I hope they will not become part of some grand agreement that everything else that we can't agree on has to be a part of it. In other words, these provisions, which I think would have broad bipartisan and public support, these provisions should not be used as a vehicle to try to drag on things that people don't agree with--certainly not at this time.

So I support these amendments. I am glad we do have the Graham-Gregg- McConnell-Kyl amendment on the floor, and I support that. And I would ask these amendments be considered in due course.

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

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

Mr. President, for several years I have been looking at the question of student loans and the abuse that often exists in that process. Also, another issue that has concerned me is America's lack of physicians in numbers sufficient to meet our current demands and the demands we may have in the future. So I have an amendment today that, hopefully, the bill managers, Senators Kennedy and Enzi, might feel comfortable supporting. It deals with both of those issues, I think, in a way that takes us in a positive direction.

The Association of American Medical Colleges, after the recommendation of Dr. Jordan Cohen, their president a couple years ago, recently stated it is their official policy that medical school enrollment should be increased by 30 percent. Most American medical schools are now already beginning to increase enrollment, some at about the rate of 15 percent, which can be done in most colleges without great expense. But as you get closer to a one-third increase, it actually begins to put a bite on people's programs. They have to have faculty, perhaps buildings, and other capabilities that may incur substantial costs.

One of the things that has concerned me--and I am not sure most Americans are fully aware of it--is that a shortage of physicians is being filled by an increasing number of graduates from foreign medical schools. Many of these are offshore schools in the Caribbean--for- profit schools. Many of them don't require test scores to get in, and they are not up to the standard of American schools. That is a fact. We have the finest, most magnificent medical schools in the world. We have a tremendous teaching and training program. We have some of the best equipment any schools could imagine in our country. So it is a special thing.

But I have been concerned that perhaps we have been too tough on enrollment, requiring too high of test scores, sometimes denying good people with good leadership skills, such as class presidents and captains of the football team, who scored a little bit below someone who had a higher physics or

chemistry score, and they don't get in. So I think we need to expand the number of people who come into medical school, and we ought to be open to qualities that are proven to further medical success, frankly. So I am concerned about that.

The interesting development I have discovered that goes to the question of our Federal dollars and how we are supporting medical education is indicated by this chart. It deals with the number of loans certified for U.S. residents who are attending foreign schools. In general, whether you are going for a semester abroad to Italy or Brazil or England or wherever, this shows that during the 1993-1994 academic year, there were under 4,600 loans, and ten years later there were over 13,000 loans. That might make one think this is a good thing, that more Americans are taking a semester abroad, as is common in a lot of schools. They encourage students to take a semester abroad, and it is an enriching experience--maybe even a year abroad. One might think that is what that issue deals with. But let's show what is happening here.

Look at this chart. Of the 13,000 students who attend foreign schools, about 9,000 of those are attending foreign medical schools. About 75 percent of the total study abroad loan volume of 2003, or about $170 million--and I am sure that number has gone up--is now for loans to students who attend foreign medical schools. That is a rather shocking number and a dramatic number. It comes from a GAO report, dated July of 2003. That is a matter I would call attention to.

What about these loans? Are these people attending top Paris medical schools or what? Look at them in terms of the volume of loans, first. Let's look at No. 1, the No. 1 school in the world where students receive U.S. Federal loan money is a medical school in Dominica. They only have one medical school on that island in the Caribbean, and they receive $35 million in loan volume, with 1,700-plus students receiving loans to go to that school.

The next one in volume is Grenada. Remember during President Reagan's presidency, when we had an invasion of Grenada, where we had American medical students and their safety was of great concern to us when that invasion took place. Grenada has one medical school. It gets $30 million and has 1,500 students attending.

The third country to receive Federal loan money for medical school is Mexico. They have 11 schools and they get $27 million. England is fourth. They have 182 schools in England, but they only get $25 million in student loans, and they have quite an advanced medical program there.

The next school on the list--the next country is the Dominican Republic, another island school. The Dominican Republic has six schools, and they receive $20 million in student loans each year. The next one is St. Maarten, another Caribbean island, $16 million. Next is Canada. We would think that would be up there at the top, would we not? Canada, our neighbor. Canada has 108 schools and they get only $15 million. The next one is another island school in the Caribbean, St. Kitts, they have two schools and they get $14 million.

I think that begins to show the problem we are dealing with. I would suggest we need to take some real interest in it.

So I have offered an amendment that would deal with it. I send my amendment to the desk, as modified, and ask for its consideration.

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

So to briefly summarize what the amendment does, it attempts to deal with this issue in a balanced but effective way. It seeks to protect taxpayers' dollars from subsidizing foreign medical schools that are failing to show positive results, and we have a way to determine which ones are showing results. Currently, in order to qualify for student financial aid, we have a rule in effect. That rule is that the foreign medical school must show 60 percent of its graduates pass the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates' Examination. This is a test you have to take after you graduate to become licensed to practice medicine in the United States. So, currently, that rule is 60 percent. This amendment would raise the bar from 60 to 75 percent, to be implemented in 2 years' time. It would give them 2 years to prepare for this.

I believe it is a reasonable change because approximately 90 percent of U.S. medical school graduates pass medical licensing examinations on their first attempt. That is a big difference. It is indisputable that the test failure rate is indicative of the quality of the instruction that one receives at a school.

During the next 2 years, prior to implementation of the new 75- percent standard, the amendment also requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on the amount of Federal aid going to offshore medical schools, the percentage of foreign medical graduates who pass the examination on the first try or after multiple attempts, the percentage of recent foreign medical school graduates practicing medicine in the United States, and a description of where and what type of medicine they are practicing and asking for recommendations for the examination passage rate the United States should require of foreign medical schools who wish to qualify so that they can receive U.S. Federal student aid.

I am also modifying the amendment by adding a portion of the study to examine the rate of malpractice lawsuits and of lost or revoked medical licenses from graduates of foreign medical schools as compared to graduates of U.S. medical schools.

Now, the study we have, the GAO report, would involve this. It would examine what is happening with students of foreign medical schools after they leave in order to determine how effective the schools are. While many of these schools likely do a pretty good job, and some I think do, there is no way to know for sure, as they are not licensed or accredited by any American entity.

Many foreign medical schools do not use cadavers--do not use cadavers--but instead have students perform procedures that would be done, preferably on

cadavers, by simulation on a computer. I don't know about you, but I don't want a doctor operating on me who has been practicing using a mouse and a keyboard.

In fact, an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review earlier this year quoted Dr. Cameron Wilkinson, medical director of Joseph N. France Hospital in St. Kitts and supervisor of clinical rotations for two medical schools on the island as saying this--this is at St. Kitts in the hospital there, the training school, and he said this: ``No medical school here would have a cadaver.''

He said: ``It would be great,'' but he explained the schools in the islands aren't equipped to work with them. This was in reference to a school on the island that was actually found to have cadavers for clinical instruction, but they kept them in black bags in an unsterile, unlocked, air-conditioned room. They were not following protocol for the use of cadavers and lacked the necessary documents to have them shipped from the United States. They also did not smell like formaldehyde, which is one reason I didn't go to medical school, having gone into a place where something was kept in formaldehyde. But that is a great concern, as formaldehyde preservation is standard procedure for institutions that utilize cadavers in medical research. Thus, this school was handling cadavers inappropriately.

But this story also makes clear that schools on the island, for the most part, never use cadavers. Many of these schools do not even require that students take the MCAT; that is, the Medical College Admission Test. Standards at some of these schools are much lower than standards at American medical schools in regard to MCAT scores and GPAs--grade point averages--if they have those requirements at all.

The Association of American Medical Colleges states that about--get this--this is the Association of American Medical Colleges. They have found that about one in four physicians practicing in the United States today, and about one in four physicians in training in the United States today, are foreign medical graduates. This is a remarkable statistic, when we have this magnificent medical school system in our country. We have gotten out of sync.

These foreign medical school graduates are, in many ways, needed to fill the gaps that currently exist in the American medical school education system. In June of 2006, as I said, the Association of American Medical Colleges recognized this shortfall and formally recommended a 30-percent increase in medical school graduates by 2015. That expansion would allow for 5,000 new medical students each year beginning in 2015.

I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I would note that the U.S. population is increasing by 25 million each decade. The number of people over 65 will double by 2030. We expect more and more out of health care. We must have additional medical physicians, and we need to increase our own system and reduce the amount of money, taxpayer money, going to medical schools that are below par.

This bill would make changes and move us in that direction. I ask our leaders to consider that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, for the purpose of offering my amendments, that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to offer two amendments, No. 2333 and No. 2342 en bloc.

Mr. President, it is No. 2342.

I will be pleased to do so. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2333.

I withdraw my request to call up amendment No. 2342 at this time.

Mr. President, the education bill before us is troubling in the fundamental ways that Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, has pointed out, in that it utilizes our reconciliation process to, instead of containing spending and helping to balance the budget, actually increase spending substantially for a lot of new programs. I wish to talk about one of those programs today that I think should not be a part of this legislation. So I have offered this amendment to strike that provision. It is an idea that sounds good. It is something about which I have had at one time or another individuals ask me to support, always for their particular business, their particular agency of Government, and I have felt that I could not support it. One reason was, how can we justify supporting one agency of Government over another? So I guess, in one sense,

this legislation fixes that problem and covers everybody, and more. Let me tell my colleagues what it does.

The idea is, if a person pays their loan debt and they are part of a direct Government loan program, that after 10 years they could get a large part of that debt forgiven. That sounds good, but let me discuss why I think this is bad public policy, why it is a new Government program we should not start, and why it is absolutely inevitable that it will grow and cost more and more as time goes along.

Let me show how broad this program is. There would be a student loan forgiveness program that would provide forgiveness of loans to public emergency management employees, government employees, public safety, public law enforcement--these could be State, county, or local, I presume--public health, public education, public early childhood education, public childcare, social work in a public child or family service agency, public services for individuals with disabilities, public services for the elderly, public interest legal services, public library services, public school library sciences, or other public school-based services, or those on full-time faculty at a tribal college or university. That is what is included. That is a big deal. It eliminates one of my concerns of why pick and choose Government agencies; it just covers them all.

Let me express why I think there are some good principled public policy concerns and objections and why I do not think this is a good step for us to take.

For example, there is no limit in this legislation on the total amount of loan forgiveness, which creates a discrepancy between the rich and the poor. Graduates of expensive schools with a lot of debt would receive quite a sizable benefit under this program, while students who work their way through college, go to a community college, would receive nothing if they didn't have any debt.

The National Association for College Admission Counseling reports that the average cost of a community college is less than half of that for a public college and one-tenth of a private 4-year college. So who is being helped here? Half of low-income students attend community colleges while only 1 in 10 high-income students attend community colleges.

Further, the lowest priced colleges are 2-year public colleges in the West, for example, with average tuition fees of $1,300. The highest priced colleges in the country are 4-year private colleges in New England with average tuition fees of $28,000.

Section 401 then creates a perverse incentive to take out the maximum amount of student loans. Rather than encouraging better public policy, I submit, that would encourage students to work their way through college and families to help them make their way through college instead.

Instead of moving in that direction, this bill would clearly move us in the direction that one would borrow more money and have the expectation that the Government will help them pay it off at some point later on.

Also, I ask why we would single out public service Government workers for this kind of benefit--there are millions of Government workers--and exclude productive citizens working in low-income jobs in the private sector who could also benefit from a similar program? Why are they left out? What principled argument is there for that? Certainly, most people working in private businesses don't have as good a retirement plan or health care plan as Government employees do. Now we are going to help them pay their tuition from taxpayers' money that comes from people in the private sector who are not getting these benefits.

Why should a public employee be elevated to a higher class of treatment of loan forgiveness than those in the private sector, those hard-working American taxpayers who are not lucky enough to have an air-conditioned office and a Government-sector job?

Public service is an honor, and as public servants, I don't think we need to ask or should think to ask to elevate our number to a higher status than that of average working Americans.

There are many hard-working Americans in the private sector who contribute to society and who would benefit from the program. I think about attorneys who need help. What about small town attorneys working hard to start a practice, or nurses, educators, inventors, small business employees, a cook who has gone to college to try to get a financial business degree so they can one day run a restaurant, department store managers who want to be CEO's one day, electricians or plumbers who want to establish their own businesses and go back to college and work their way through and keep their debt down? These people pay taxes that benefit a Government worker who has a lifetime job, probably making more than they are, certainly with a lot more job security than they would have, and countless others around the country. Why should we benefit one and not the other? These are people paying taxes too. I haven't seen that we have difficulty getting people to take Government jobs. They are pretty attractive out there, the truth be known.

So somebody goes off to a big expensive college and gets a big expensive degree and owes $75,000 or $100,000. Well, the Government is going to help them pay that back but not help the guy out there on the street corner trying to make a living to pay his back--the same person who is paying the taxes that are paying not only the salary now for the Government employee but now will pay their education costs. There is no principled basis that justifies them to be entitled to loan repayments more than there would be for someone in the private sector.

There is no means test for this program. It doesn't matter under this program if the public employee has millions of dollars in the bank. If you had millions of dollars in the bank, and you knew you were going to get a job where the Government was going to help you pay back the loan, why wouldn't you borrow the money to go to college instead of paying for it yourself? This incentivizes people, I suggest, perversely, to borrow money to go to college rather than working their way through or utilizing the millions of dollars they may have.

Let me say this. I am not against assisting people to pay for a college education. But we are spending billions of dollars on higher education through direct benefits to colleges and universities, loans, subsidies, and grants. Total student aid, including grants from all sources, plus loans, work study, and tax benefits from the Federal Government, increased by 95 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars over the decade from 1995-96 to 2005-06. So we are spending more to help our people go to college, by putting more Pell grants and loan money out there.

I think Senator Kennedy's concern about abuse of the private loan program is valid. I was inclined to support the Burr amendment, but I am of the view that the program was subject to too much abuse and we needed to fix it. But I will note this about this amendment: It creates an unequal footing between the Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan Program--Senator Alexander was referring to those programs--because the only people to get benefits under this loan repayment program would have to go through the Direct Loan Program. The competition between these two programs, it has generally been held, and the Senate believes, will benefit students, and that is why we didn't eliminate the private loan program even in this bill we are passing.

So allowing loan forgiveness solely through the Direct Loan Program is not principled, I think, at all. It will undoubtedly give an advantage to the Direct Loan Program as students have no other route in which to receive loan forgiveness than to borrow under the Direct Loan Program.

Let me say this--and I didn't realize this until recently: 82 percent of the schools in my home State of Alabama do not use the Direct Loan Program but participate in the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Students graduating from my small alma mater, Huntingdon College, a liberal arts college, would not be eligible because Huntingdon is not a direct loan school. Schools choose FFELP because the private sector offers the better services, they think, and saves them money. Nationally, this statistic is around 80 percent. So 80 percent of the colleges and universities in our country are not in the Direct Loan Program, and under this plan you wouldn't benefit unless you were in it.

They say: Well, you could consolidate your loans under the Direct Loan Program and, therefore, then you could get repayment. But isn't that a tilting of the scales and a perverse benefit to the Direct Loan Program, which is supposed to be on a competitive basis to see who offers the best incentive to the students to get a good loan program? They get to choose now which they think is best. So I don't think that providing this incentive to clearly favor the Direct Loan Program and exclude the other is good public policy. I am not aware that those who voted for it understood it might have done that.

Studies show that when you extend your loan, sometimes you end up paying more interest than going on and paying them off. The Federal Family Education Loan Program is far more popular than the Direct Loan Program at present because they have tended to offer lower interest rates and quality service, but I think there are some abuses, too, and, hopefully, this bill will tighten that up.

I will conclude on this matter by saying this is the kind of program that truly, colleagues, should strike fear in the heart of anyone concerned about the expansion and growth of Federal spending and Federal programs. It will create a new Federal bureaucracy. Next year, I predict--since this bill says you have to be regular in your payment of your student loan to qualify for this program--I will predict next year we will be providing exceptions to those who have lost their jobs, who have had an illness or who have had other kinds of problems; or we will be having lawsuits and administrative hearings over whether this or that person qualifies to have part of their loan forgiven based simply on the fact they work for some Government or public agency.

If we want to help public employees, let us do it in a more direct manner. Why should we provide a benefit program that helps those who go to some expensive college, maybe don't work while they go to college, and end up with a big debt? Let's say two individuals are working at the county health department or the EMA and one of them ran up a big debt and the Government helps them pay it off; while the other one, who worked their way through college, doesn't get anything. That is not a good way to help people, in my view.

It is also, again I submit, bad public policy because it encourages and incentivizes people not to pay their way through but to borrow money. We would like to have a different incentive. Good public policy should do that. I also see no principled basis to provide this benefit solely to the Direct Loan Program and not to the other loan programs. It is a clear tilt from one side to the other when 80 percent of the American colleges and universities are not in the Federal Direct Loan Program.

So I would say, first of all, the way it is structured today it will not be a huge, costly program for our country, but it is not based on good principles, No. 1; No. 2, it is going to be expanded, you can be sure, in the future; and No. 3, it will create another bureaucracy, another Government program, when we already have Pell grants and loan programs that we are pumping more and more money into every year.

I suggest if we have ideas about helping people with their loans, we focus on existing loan programs and not create this one that is unprincipled in its results.

Mr. President, has Senator Kennedy had an opportunity to think about that other amendment I was going to call up?

Mr. President, reserving the floor--I believe I still am recognized--I know Senator Kennedy has never offered a finance- related amendment on a bill that hasn't cleared the Finance Committee.

I am teasing a little bit because we all knew this bill is open to this kind of amendment, I think, and that is why I wanted to offer that AMT fix. We have voted on it before. It is something that I think we need to be more educated about and that is the reason I wanted to offer that.

I will not offer it at this time, if Senator Mikulski wishes to speak on the education amendment, but I hope that will not bar me from getting the floor a little later and seeking to call up that extra amendment.

I yield the floor.

Would you yield for a question?

I have supported the loan programs and the Pell grants. I like the Pell Grant Program. That is focused on a person of lower income. We probably do have lower income students in Alabama, and we probably benefitted nicely under the Pell Grant Program compared to more blessed States such as Massachusetts.

I simply would ask the question, the question I raise is: If you have two persons in nursing school and one is maybe already a nurse but trying to get a higher degree and she works and keeps her debt down, the one who does not do that gets more benefit than the other. It does only favor those in the public sector and not in the private sector.

I believe this bill continues the emphasis, which I support, on maybe having better Pell grant provisions for those who do math and science and some of the areas in which we have shortages. I believe it goes further than that, does it not? I know we did that last year. I think that was a good step in trying to help deal with shortage areas.

I would be pleased.

Mr. President, the provision in this bill that creates an entirely new loan forgiveness program for Government public service workers I believe is unprincipled and can only get worse in the years to come. Actually, it has some pernicious aspects to it.

For example, it says if you are any Government worker or social service worker, it appears that as long as you are not in the private sector, after 10 years, the Government will forgive your loan debt. I think that is an odd thing for us to do, to have that many people have their loans forgiven.

I think, No. 1, when people go to college and they make up their mind about how they are going to pay for college and whether they will work, this will be an inducement for people not to work and to borrow; it will encourage borrowing for loans. No. 2, it

does not have any limit on the amount of money involved, so those who go to more expensive colleges will obviously get more of the taxpayers' money than those who don't go to more expensive colleges in terms of the loan forgiveness. I think that is not a healthy thing.

Eighty percent of the colleges and universities in America don't use the Direct Loan Program. Eighty percent do not. You don't get this loan forgiveness unless you are part of the Direct Loan Program, or consolidate your loans with it. I think that is an odd bias in the system that I am not comfortable with. So I will say, again, I think this is creating a new bureaucracy, an unwise way to help workers. I would suggest if we want to help people, we should expand our Pell grants--as we have dramatically and I support--and the loan programs in general but not to target a forgiveness program to people who have been working for the Government for 10 years who are probably better able to pay off the loan than they were the first 2 or 3 years they started to work. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't like this new program and all its ramifications.

I think our focus should be on Pell grants, on improving the loan program for everybody equally, and I don't think the plumber who is taking business courses so he might one day run his own business, or the nurse who is advancing her skill level so she might one day reach a higher level of pay, that one ought to be favored over the other.

I strongly believe our resources should be directed to overall strengthening of the loan program and not focusing on just Government employees. I am not putting down Government employees, but I will ask you about two Government employees, one who goes to a community college and works their way through and ends up with no debt and another one who incurs a good bit of debt, one gets benefits under this program, whereas the other one doesn't. I don't think that is a good principle. I think that is hard to defend.

How much time remains?

I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Kennedy. I know the bill does do some good things with regard to Pell grants and to focusing more of our loan money on some of the professions and areas of our economy that need more students involved, so I salute that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are indeed dealing with a serious subject that gives us all great pause and concern. I know my colleagues have had a sign that they have put up: Let us vote. I think it is important to recall that 53 days ago, we voted. We voted in this Congress to authorize and appropriate the funds to execute the surge that General Petraeus is right now executing in Iraq. That is what we did. It was a vote of 80 to 14. Less than 2 months ago, we voted to do that. Many of the speakers tonight saying we must withdraw right now, we must have a new strategy, have forgotten that when we cast those votes 53 days ago, we were executing a new strategy then. Are we now going to have another one?

Virtually all of the individuals who spoke voted for that funding, voted knowing that General Petraeus would lead this surge and voted knowing that we would be having a report in September and we could work through that report to decide how we would conduct this war in the future.

The Levin amendment is, indeed, a very important amendment. There is nothing small about this. It is critical. It requires our full attention. We must recognize that. I do believe it is inescapable that the Levin amendment calls for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Those troops not withdrawn will be directed by this Congress today by this vote on how they will conduct operations in Iraq. As our distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arizona, said, we will be telling our soldiers what they can and cannot do, whom they can and cannot wage war against, and how they will be conducting it. A group of politicians in an air-conditioned room sitting in Washington developing a political compromise is going to tell commanders how to deploy our soldiers in the field. So the issues have special urgency because right now American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are in harm's way.

No one is afraid to stand up to the President. Our challenge is to do the right thing, the right thing for America, the right thing for our soldiers, the right thing for history. I believe my colleague from Michigan said we will be judged on how we leave. I was thinking the other day about that phrase someone said: Nothing so became them save their manner of leaving. I would alter it somewhat and suggest that someone might say: Nothing so ill became them save their manner of leaving. If we do it wrong, if we do it in a way that leads to mass slaughter or disorder, death, instability in the entire region, it is a threat to the peace of the region.

It is this Congress, not just the President, which authorized the use of force in Iraq in the beginning. We have confirmed the commander of those military personnel that are there now. We have provided the money and resources to maintain and to carry out that military operation. Those wonderful military personnel of ours have worked and fought and bled and died as a result of the policies we have authorized. It is our responsibility. We can't just blame it on the President. They have performed nobly and served this country well.

While I have never felt that I have had enough time in Iraq and that I have been able to learn everything I would like, I have visited that country six times. I talked to our soldiers there, our Guard, Reserve, Active Duty, those from Alabama and from other States. I talk to them in airports and their families in my State. They have done a great job. The biggest complaint I have heard consistently is: Why don't people tell the good things that we do and that occur? All we hear is the bad. I hear that a great deal.

But the truth is, for reasons unconnected to the fine work of our soldiers, things have not gone as well as we had hoped in Iraq. The Iraq mission has been very difficult in terms of lives lost, wounded, and the cost. While the initial military action went far better than many of us expected, the aftermath has been marked by errors, violence, and frustration. Particularly at this point, we are disappointed that the Iraqi Government has been unable to produce the kind of political leadership that would be beneficial to reducing the violence. It is a real frustration for us. There is no easy solution to it. They say we don't understand their difficulties. I suspect some people can't understand why Congress can't do things as they would like to have them do also.

Perhaps our biggest error as we went into this war was to underestimate the difficulty of creating a functioning government in an area of the world that has not had one before. This is not an easy thing. It is a very difficult thing. We have to be realistic about that in the future. For those in Congress, for the American people and our generals, there is certainly no one easy solution, and there is no certain outcome. But we do know the outcome is very important to the Iraqi people, to the people of the region, and to us. We need to get it right.

I earnestly hope we can draw down our troop levels in Iraq soon. Nothing would make me happier than to see that happen. But we must do it correctly, smartly. We can't do it precipitously. We can't do it here, without even listening to our general in Iraq whom we just sent there to command those troops, without even getting his opinion. This is his third year, third tour in Iraq. He was there when the initial invasion occurred. I visited with him when he commanded the 101st Airborne in Mosul. He came back and trained the Iraqi military. He came back home for the second time and wrote the manual on how to defeat an insurgency. Now he is back over there executing that, and we knew all that when we sent him. How can we write a policy of withdrawal and to direct the limited purposes for which our troops can be used and then set forth three purposes for which they can be used and the people that they can take military action against and we haven't even heard from our commander? What kind of sense is that? What kind of responsibility is that?

They say: If we don't threaten to withdraw, they won't reconcile and do all the things we want them to do in the Government. If we have to do more than threaten to withdraw if they don't do those things, we are going to have to just withdraw because they haven't satisfied our ambitions and goals for their successful political development.

Proponents of the Reed-Levin amendment claim that we must withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq because it is the only way to bring a responsible end to the war and to force the Iraqi Government to act. Actually, such a withdrawal required by the amendment is far more likely to consign the Iraqi people to mass slaughter.

The Iraq Study Group specifically--that is the group which has been so often cited, the independent group--concluded:

A premature American departure from Iraq would almost

certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further

deterioration of conditions.

The study further concluded:

The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum,

great human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat

to the global economy.

Similarly, the intelligence community concluded in the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, earlier this year that the consequences of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq prior to Iraq being able to provide for its own security would be sectarian violence, that sectarian violence would significantly increase, accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement. Get that? Sectarian violence would significantly increase, accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement.

The intelligence community pointed out how this mass chaos in Iraq would directly threaten the security of the U.S. homeland as it concluded al- Qaida would attempt to use Anbar Province to further attacks outside Iraq. General Hayden, Director of the CIA, succinctly testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in response to the question what would happen if we pulled out now from Iraq--that was the question to the Director of the CIA--he said succinctly three quick areas: more Iraqis die from the disorder inside Iraq; Iraq becomes a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the one al-Qaida had in Afghanistan; and the conflict in Iraq bleeds over into the neighborhood and threatens serious regional instability.

The Iraq Study Group concluded al-Qaida would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. They have already claimed historic victory over the Soviet Union.

I ask: Is this a responsible way to leave? Is this a way to see what we have done in Iraq end?

Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, said we need to pull out of Iraq so we can ``drive the terrorists back to the darkest caves and corners of the Earth.'' Well, that is a good goal, I suggest. But tell me how that goal would be furthered if we pulled out and gave a safe haven in Iraq to al-Qaida and provided them with a victory of historic proportions. Wouldn't that embolden them? Wouldn't that enable them to recruit more people? Do you think they are then just going to be satisfied there? Wouldn't they then have the initiative? Would not they then be looking where they would hit next?

Our Democratic colleagues argue that it is somehow wrong for those who oppose the Levin amendment to utilize the full procedural protections available to a minority in the Senate. It wasn't wrong when they were using those manners on a regular basis, trust me. I think we set a record last year or the year before on these filibusters and the number of times it took 60 votes to do something or not succeed in getting 60 votes. But they suggest that somehow it is inappropriate to use our well-established, commonly used procedure, routinely done, to require 60 votes on a matter of great importance such as this. Of course, I would suggest that is when, in matters of great importance, the 60-vote rule is most needed and most appropriate.

To press the point further, I strongly believe that whatever the inclinations of Senators on the conduct of the war in Iraq, to change our strategy now before we even hear from General Petraeus in September would be a colossal blunder for a host of reasons. To do so would be unthinkable. It must not and I believe will not happen. This Senator would be derelict in his duty if he did not make use of every traditional proper rule of procedure in this Senate to see that it does not happen, and that I will do. We agreed to execute this surge and to take a report in September. That is what we should do. We already have a new strategy.

We debated it at length in April and in May. Bipartisan meetings occurred. The Democratic leader and the Republican leader went to the White House, and they talked and they talked, and we finally agreed and passed, 80 to 14, the bill that funds this surge. That is our new strategy.

We knew exactly what we were voting for. There was no dispute about it. We were voting for an increase in American soldiers in Iraq and a new emphasis on General Petraeus's strategy of counterinsurgency and increasing security in Baghdad particularly. That is the strategy General Petraeus is now executing. Are we now to change it again? Are we now to have a strategy de jure or a new one every week based on coffee shop talk or some poll that just came in?

Senator Reid earlier today quoted polls that said people agree with him. He said someone talked to his brother. Let's get real here. The established bipartisan policy that we passed 80 to 14, 53 days ago, must not be lightly changed on polls and anecdotes--change without even listening to the general who is in Iraq, seeking his opinion. It would embarrass the United States before our allies and the world. Indeed, U.N. Security General Ban Ki-moon yesterday urged us to exercise ``great caution'' in considering a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. He said:

It is not my place to inject myself into this discussion

taking place between the American people, government and

Congress. But I'd like to tell you that a great caution

should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people. Any abrupt

withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration.

Well, is that a product of President Bush's pressure or some hardheadedness? No. The Secretary General is very worried that we may abruptly alter our commitments and policies without any rational plan for what would happen next.

A rushed withdrawal, I think, could even signal political panic. It could signal a lack of seriousness and thoughtfulness. It is unthinkable that the Senate would vote to flip-flop our strategy while our soldiers at this very moment work to execute the congressional policy we assigned them 54 days ago.

Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi will have in effect taken over, I suppose, as Commander in Chief in conducting this military action and begun to direct the very deployment of our soldiers on the battlefield, telling them what they can and cannot do, without any advice from the military and, indeed, contrary to our Commander's wishes and opinions. They do not even want to hear his report, the one we asked him to give just a few days ago.

Well, maybe somebody, if they are going to take over that, would have to tell him what we voted on if this bill were to pass. Hopefully, it will not. A phone call might go like this: General Petraeus, this is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I know we confirmed you to lead the new surge, and after much debate we voted on May 24, 80 to 14, to approve and to fully fund your new surge strategy. I voted ``yes'' for it, too. But that was then. That was 54 days ago. Since then we have heard from antiwar activists--some of them come in cute pink suits and wear crowns--from many concerned citizens, and somebody talked to my brother, and maybe a few pollsters and political consultants have been consulted. So just forget that old strategy. We now have voted for a new one. It will be very popular here. Prepare for rapid withdrawal of your forces. Your work is a failure. You will not succeed. We do not want to listen to your report. Just make sure you comply with our mandates and pull out of there.

Well, he might go on--the majority leader might--well, yes, we did say you would have until your report in September, but that promise was a long time ago. It was 54 days ago. Much has changed here at home. Just follow our new strategy. Well, General Petraeus, I know you feel something is owed to our soldiers out there who are at risk working to execute the surge strategy

we supported just 54 days ago. Just tell them we changed our minds. You say they will be let down if they are stopped before they have an opportunity to achieve success? I do not think so. They will get over it.

Well, maybe that is a bit unfair. Maybe that is not a fair way to deal with it. But with a little senatorial poetic license, I think it makes a sort of point. Many have said that President Bush lied to get us into this war. I reject that. But what is the integrity in voting on a policy in May that puts 30,000 more soldiers in harm's way and then we pull the plug on them before they have half a chance to be successful?

Our military will go where we ask them to go. They will go into harm's way. They are willing to put their lives on the line. They do not want to be put on the line if we are not going to follow through to success in the end. Among the other adverse ramifications of a precipitous withdrawal, a failure of will by the Congress that denies our military a fair chance to be successful, I think could be damaging to the morale of the finest military we have ever had. I think it is an important matter.

There are a lot of things we need to be thinking about. I do not know how this war will come out. I am anxious to hear General Petraeus's report. He finished at the top of his class at West Point or near the top. He was No. 1 in his class at the Command and General Staff College. He has his Ph.D from Princeton. He is a Ranger combat commander of the 101st Airborne, and he has written the manual on how to defeat an insurgency. He has only had his full complement of the surge troops about 3 weeks.

I believe it is premature and immature for us to react in this way and vote to bring those soldiers home, to reorder how they will be deployed without even seeking his opinion or giving it sufficient thought.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I was in that area, also, in the spring and was there last fall. Last fall, I thought it was one of the worst briefings, the most troubling briefings I had about the condition in the al-Anbar region. I say to the Senator, you have been there, I guess, within the last week. It was a dramatic turnaround. One of the thoughts that went in my mind was: Why would I ever want to bet against the U.S. Marines. They were out there having a tough challenge, but this thing has turned around, has it not? I ask the Senator, is that his view, from talking to the people on the ground, as they explained it to us?

Madam President, we are talking about some very serious

issues that impact the life and safety of our soldiers whom we have called on to serve us in Iraq. It is a matter the American people care about, and we owe them the most careful study.

To my distinguished colleague, the assistant Democratic majority leader, Senator Durbin, I would say one thing about a change in strategy. We voted to change our strategy. We voted 80 to 14, 53 days ago, to change our strategy, to send General Petraeus and fund the surge that is going on in Iraq. That is our strategy. We just voted on this. In fact, a few weeks ago, the last part of that surge arrived in Iraq. What, are we going to change it again, this month?

Later this week, we will vote on the Levin amendment to decide whether to change, again, our strategy in Iraq. Changing strategy by Congress during a time of war, particularly making changes that are opposed by the military and our Commander in Chief, is not a small matter. Our decisions deal with war and how to achieve peace and will affect the safety and the mission of those magnificent men and women who now serve us in Iraq.

For the busy American, the casual observer, and even the world citizen, it may be this is an appropriate time to vote on this subject again. Certainly, the frustration in our country and inside all of us is high and we are deeply concerned.

I would note that I think all of us agree that quite a number of errors have taken place in our military actions in Iraq. I suggest perhaps the most serious error was our belief that we could, too readily, alter this Government in Iraq and create a new government that would be effective virtually overnight.

That is contrary to good, conservative principles. These people in Iraq have never had a heritage of a functioning government other than brutality, and it is very difficult to do. I think we are finding out it is very difficult to do. It can't be done as quickly as many of us would like to have thought when this activity was begun some years ago.

But with regard to this change in policy, I suggest the Members in the Senate know better. We know it is not appropriate to be changing our policy again. We know that any nation, especially one that aspires to be a great nation, must deal with these life-and-death matters with maturity and sound judgment. We know if we were to lift our eyes off politics and emotion, that our country, striving to do good, is facing a most difficult challenge in Iraq. Things have not gone well. Our terrorist enemies are watching our politics with great interest. Sometimes they play us like a Stradivarius. And so our allies are watching. So, indeed, is the whole world. The terrorists are quite sophisticated and strive to produce a continuous series of bloody headlines to affect American public opinion. Our judgment, our character, our principles, our very souls are being tested. But this Nation has faced tough times before.

Don't we remember the history of Washington at Valley Forge or the burning of our own Capitol by the British in 1812 or the brutal bloody Civil War or the massive deaths in World War I or the attack on Pearl Harbor or the Italian campaign, the ferocious battles for Iwo Jima, Okinawa, D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge or the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean war? These are major moments in American history, and blunders in strategy and tactics and timing occurred in almost every one of them. Many errors occurred. Failures that cost lives unnecessarily, placed our Nation at greater risk than was necessary. But that is the nature of war.

Enemies lose a great deal of sleep trying to figure out what the weaknesses are of their adversary and trying to exploit that, and frequently they are successful, to a point. But certainly it is appropriate, even in times of war, that the Congress question and challenge the Commander in Chief and our military generals. But that challenge must be, no matter how vigorous, responsible, and honest. Our domestic politics are quite partisan, true; and, frankly, I have been a little disappointed at the nature of the debate I have heard this afternoon. Republican this and Republican that and President Bush this and President Bush that--it sounds more like politics than a sincere effort to reach the proper decision about what our future course should be.

Still, no one should deny that a congressional response to a war, a war that over three-quarters of us voted to authorize, should rise above political gain. With some exceptions, this Congress I think has done so.

Truly, there is great concern in our land about the war in Iraq. It is real and justified. I readily admit my concern. I will admit I am not able to state with certainty today what our long-term course should ultimately be or how this will all play out in the end. Therefore, I do not contest the sincerity of those who will disagree with my conclusions.

I can only state my views honestly and forthrightly because that is what I have been elected to do, and that is what our soldiers who depend on us for support expect of me.

First, I strongly believe this Nation cannot flop around, changing its policy from month to month. That would be immature. It would result in bad execution of this military effort, this war. It would demoralize our soldiers who are walking the streets of Iraq this very moment because we sent them there.

Additionally, this Congress funded their military operations. We funded them. Our duly elected President, our Commander in Chief, has directed the policy with the advice of his commanders in the field. That is what it is. That is what is going on. That is what is happening.

Now we had a great debate in April and May over whether to fund the so called ``surge'' that President Bush and the Defense Department requested. This is the surge that has, a few weeks ago, reached its full strength. After the full debate, Congress could have said no to the President on his request for the surge and not provided those funds.

Fourteen Senators did vote no. But we said yes by an overwhelming vote of 80 to 14. On May 24, less than 2 months ago, we authorized the surge and, more importantly, we passed an emergency supplemental to fund this surge. Nothing required us in Congress to do that. We concluded it was the right thing to do, considering the serious alternatives that existed.

Because of the concerns we all had at that time, we required an interim report on July 15th, which has been received on time. We also called for a complete report from General Petraeus, in September, on the status of his efforts and our soldiers' work.

Of course, we had voted to confirm General Petraeus by a vote of 99 to 0 to command this operation. There was no mistake then concerning the seriousness of the situation we were in. As General Petraeus described the challenge:

It is difficult but not impossible.

We were in no way misled about the difficulties we faced, nor were we unaware of the most serious ramifications of a failure in Iraq.

Thus, on May 24, this Congress, with an overwhelming majority, said: Let's go with the surge. But we said: General Petraeus, we will expect you to give us a full, complete, and honest report in September as to how it is going with the good and the bad, and set out specific benchmarks we want you to address. That he promised to, do, and off he went.

Yet even before the personnel who were to be deployed to effect this surge had even arrived in Iraq, the Democratic majority leader, Senator Reid, who voted for the surge, to my dismay, declared it a failure. While the troops were still arriving, the Democratic leader, the majority leader of the Senate, declared the surge a failure.

To me it is unthinkable that this Congress would pull the plug on this operation before it has had a fair chance to work, and we have had a fair chance to evaluate its effectiveness. We voted for it 53 days ago. What must the world community think, friend and adversary alike? Does not such immaturity of action reflect poorly on us as a nation? Nothing has occurred since that time of decision in May to justify concluding that the situation in Iraq has significantly changed for the worse? In fact, there are indications that some improvements have occurred. We know that General Petraeus, last year, after two tours in Iraq, 2 years over there, came home and last year wrote the Department of

Defense doctrine on how to defeat an insurgency. His expertise was much noted when we confirmed him to go take charge of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who would effectuate this effort. Nowhere in his manual did he ever suggest an insurgency could be defeated in 50 days, or 90 days, or 120 days.

Victory, we must admit--if you read his manual--takes time, diligence, determination, and smart application of politics, weaponry, and forces. His manual sets out methods for how to achieve victory against an insurgency, the methods for victory.

There is simply no basis at this point to conclude that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have failed in executing this policy. In fact, they are moving out with vigor. After seeing a reduction of sectarian violence in Baghdad by two-thirds. This is the sectarian violence, the murders that were occurring between hit squads, Shia and Sunni, as a result of the violence kicked off by the attack by al-Qaida on the Samara mosque, and their determined, effective policy to create violence between the Shia and the Sunni. That is what al-Qaida set out to do, and they succeeded last year.

We have seen that drop by two-thirds, although bombings still occur, and the bombings are suicidal, many times with large bombs that kill large numbers of civilians in shopping areas. But today some of our troops are moving out of Baghdad into the toughest areas outside Baghdad, such as the Dyala Province, and making, it appears, progress there.

As our soldiers confront enemy strongholds, some of which have never before been cleared, they demonstrate professionalism and courage that reflect the finest qualities that have ever been demonstrated by American soldiers.

Nor, let me add, has anything occurred that suggests this new strategy is flawed and will not succeed and should be abandoned 53 days since we agreed to see it forward.

So with respect, I conclude it would be irresponsible in the extreme to have this bunch of politicians sitting in air-conditioned offices in Washington reverse a strategy we approved 53 days ago. But that is exactly what the Levin-Reed amendment would do.

I have tremendous respect for Senator Levin. He is a superb chairman of the Armed Services Committee. But I do not agree with him on this point. I do not believe this is right.

If you were a soldier or a marine and you had just moved into a tough terrorist neighborhood in Iraq, following the directions given to you by your President and your Congress, and you saw your comrades take casualties, maybe killed in the course of executing that policy, all in the belief that somebody up there back in Washington had finally settled on a workable plan for victory, and then before your work is half done, in less than 2 months, you learn the folks up there had now changed their mind again, how would you feel? Wouldn't you think we do not take our mission of our soldiers and what they are doing seriously?

We owe our military better than that. We owe them the same courage and character they are displaying right now. On the birthday of our Army, I was at a celebration and met a young soldier. I thanked him for his service and began to explain my concern about the long deployments we were asking them to undertake. He cut in, saying, ``Senator, we just want to win.'' Before all that is just, this Congress must not fail such men.

The Levin amendment is pernicious in more ways than I am able to discuss at this time. It must not pass. We know a full review of our policies will occur in September. We agreed on that in May. That is critically important and valuable. I support such a review. I am open minded about what we will decide to do in September.

I hope and pray we will be able to reduce the number of our soldiers and begin a mature, effective way to reduce that deployment in Iraq, but we will decide our next step then. To execute a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq now, regardless of the conditions on the battlefield, and regardless of the advice of our commanders in the field, is unthinkable. It would be a stain on this Senate for years to come.

Has anybody bothered to express an interest in what General Petraeus has to say about it? Things don't always go well. My favorite statue in Washington is one that conveys the most historical import, I think, the one of General Grant right down here in front of the Capitol. He sits astride his horse, his campaign hat pulled down, his coat wrapped around, his head tilted slightly forward, a perfect picture of determination in the face of great difficulty.

It is said 600,000 died in that war on both sides. Over 440,000 Americans died in World War II. This Nation has seen dark days before, days darker than these. So let's keep our poise and our wits about us. Let's give General Petraeus and his courageous military personnel a chance to effect the strategy we agreed on and asked him to effect.

There are other important issues I will suggest to my colleagues as we discuss the Levin amendment. I will note a few briefly.

The surge report. The language in our affirmation of the surge in May called for a report that had benchmarks for improvements in Iraq. Those benchmarks have been much commented upon, but these benchmarks for improvement did not declare that all or any of the benchmarks must be met by September or even by July 15, the time of our interim report. They were to be objective markers by which we could judge progress and lack of it, and they were surely not exhaustive of every issue and challenge we faced in Iraq.

The fact that progress has been made in only half of those benchmark areas does not mean, of course, we should now up and declare the new operation a failure and that we should now cut and run. How could anyone conclude this July 15 report that shows limited early progress in only some areas means General Petraeus has failed? All the extra soldiers arrived there only 3 weeks ago.

It is also important to note that the benchmarks seemed to focus on the performance we wish to see by the central government, and they have not been meeting their responsibilities, in my view. I had my sixth visit there this spring. I was able to share that view and that frustration of the American people with the top leaders in Iraq, including Prime Minister Maliki. We believe they need to do more in the central government.

But, for example, the benchmarks provided no credit at all for the stunning progress that has occurred in the al-Anbar region, progress that has resulted at the ground level where Sunni tribal leaders have partnered with the marines to rout whole groups of al-Qaida operatives.

Similar progress, though smaller, it appears, seems to be occurring in other areas at the local level. So the benchmarks do not consider those events and whether progress is being made, but they are important as we evaluate what our situation truly is. We must remember that while sectarian violence continues, and it has occurred in large part as a direct result of al-Qaida's strategy to foment it, safety and security in the capital city is important in furthering political reconciliation.

I wish I could agree with the idea of my able colleague Senator Levin when he declared that peace and security in Iraq can only come as a result of a political settlement. Thus, he would suggest if a parliament cannot settle all of the difficult political issues on the timetable we set, we must leave, because this is the only thing that will make them agree on policy, our threatening to leave, and our actual leaving, it appears, because his amendment would require an actual departure from much of Iraq.

Well, I wish it were so easy. But, in truth, our commanders believe, our State Department believes, and I believe, it is far more complicated than that. Of course, a political settlement and reconciliations are critical to any long-term stability. But will not a reduction of violence and a more secure Baghdad be an event that will make political progress more possible? That is what the generals are telling us, that when the capital city is in a constant state of violence and disorder, how can we expect the Parliament to be able to function and to provide a peaceful settlement of the disputes that need to be settled long term for a healthier Iraq?

I think we have a new strategy. We voted on it 53 days ago. We agreed to

fund it. That is what the Congress does, we either put up the money or we do not put up the money. By a vote of 80 to 14 we put up the money to fund this strategy. We asked for a report in September, and now we have an amendment that has garnered quite a lot of political headlines and provided a lot of forums, a lot of ability to come forward on the floor of the Senate to attack President Bush and Republicans, but it is not a very responsible thing.

The responsible thing is for us to do what we said 53 days ago--to demand a full, complete, and honest report by General Petraeus in September, and at that point to evaluate the situation in Iraq and establish a strategy and a policy going forward from there that serves our national interest.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have great respect for my colleague, Senator Feingold. If I am not mistaken, he opposed the authorization of military force in Iraq and has consistently opposed that policy. I am not supportive of the Levin amendment. I think it would result in a precipitous, irresponsible, and dangerous redeployment of our soldiers, confusing to our allies, placing our soldiers who remain in Iraq at greater risk, and placing the Iraqi soldiers, many of whom, indeed, are standing with us right now to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, making their lives more dangerous. In fact, they are taking more casualties than we are. It is not correct to say they are not performing. We wish they would perform much better. We wish the Government was stronger. But, in fact, we are at this very moment shoulder to shoulder in operation after operation around Iraq.

I will note this. This is not a little, bitty nation we are leaders of. This is the United States of America, a great nation. Two months ago, the Congress

of this great Nation voted to fund the surge in Iraq, and this Senate voted 99 to 0 to confirm General Petraeus to lead that surge. We required an interim report on July 15 on how things are going and a more serious, comprehensive report from General Petraeus himself in September. OK? That is what we did, and that is what we are doing.

For the last, I believe, 3 weeks, the surge has been complete. For only 3 weeks have we had the full complement of troops as part of this surge. Already some things have happened militarily that are good in Iraq.

So before we get the general's report in September, without anything other than our own opinions from reading newspapers and watching TV and sitting in our air-conditioned offices, we are now going to come along and abrogate what this great Nation did 2 months ago because of some political pressure or some spot they saw on the evening news, placing our soldiers at risk, undermining the policies we are asking them to execute at this very moment. Even pushing for that at this time I think is irresponsible.

I wish to be on record as saying I understand the difficulties we are facing in Iraq. I understand the courage our soldiers are displaying. I understand the risks they are subjected to right now, and we want to see the situation improve. All of us do. But we voted for this policy. The surge has just started. We need to give General Petraeus a chance to proceed with it and not flop around irresponsibly and come up with a withdrawal policy that is so rapid that I am not even sure the military can effectively carry it out under the Levin amendment. As a matter of fact, they cannot effectively carry it out.

Mr. President, I guess we are still in morning business. I see my colleague, Senator Nelson from Florida, whom I respect so greatly. He chairs the Strategic Subcommittee of which I am pleased to be the ranking member.

I believe I am to be recognized in a few minutes on a separate amendment, but if Senator Nelson has some comments he would like to make at this time, I will consider yielding to him and see what our schedule is.