Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I so amend the request.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my strong feelings about our dialog in Congress on the war in Iraq. I am concerned not only with the defeatist message some of us are sending our brave men and women in our Armed Forces on a daily basis but also with the message being sent to terrorists and those who wish to harm us. Instead of focusing our attention this week on how to provide our Armed Forces with the best equipment possible to complete their mission, many in this body continue to play political games with the war. This political game is deflating troop morale and strengthening our enemies.

Some of our colleagues believe they know the situation on the ground in Iraq better than my friend General Petraeus, the commander of the multinational force in Iraq. They believe we should begin a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. The people who are best qualified to decide our troop levels are the commanders on the ground, not the politicians in Washington, DC.

I wish to talk specifically to the Democrats who want to immediately withdraw. Contrary to what the base of the Democratic Party may think, this war is not a Republican war and it is not just a President Bush war; it is an American war. When we vote to send troops into battle, they fight under the American flag. If we win or lose in Iraq, the United States of America wins or loses--not the Republican Party and not just President Bush.

I saw yesterday the Democratic Senatorial Committee is now running ads in selected States asking Republican Senators to vote to immediately bring our troops home from Iraq. I watched the ads. I played them on my television, and I played them on the computers in my office. Not surprisingly, they did not mention once what would happen if American forces withdrew quickly from Iraq. Nor did they mention that the head of the DSCC and the Senate majority leader voted to authorize the war. There is a shocker.

If we take the advice of the political arm of the Senate Democrats and pull out of Iraq, chaos will rule the day in Iraq and spread throughout the Middle East, in spite of what some of our colleagues on the other side have said.

That is why many of the Democrats who want to bring our troops home now don't talk about the harsh consequences of pulling out. This is precisely why we should not politicize war in 30-second sound bites.

I also wish to briefly address my Republican colleagues who may be feeling the political pressure back home as we debate this war. Our constituents sent us to Washington, DC, to make tough decisions, not to cast votes based on public opinion polls. Many of you know the consequences of pulling out of Iraq. I know because we have talked about it in our conferences. But stay strong enough until September, when General Petraeus will brief us on the effects of the change in strategy. Let us all then reevaluate the changes we made. The changes we made have only been fully implemented for less than a month. I acknowledge that the signs of success have been slow and, yes, many mistakes have been made with past strategies. But that is how war is. Mistakes sometimes are made. We learned from our mistakes and we moved forward with a new strategy. This new strategy is now in place.

General Petraeus is working, with the increase of thousands of American troops, to bring safety and stability to Baghdad and Anbar Province, putting insurgents on the run. The partnership between the United States and Iraqi forces against terrorist insurgents is increasing. Last month, more than 10,000 Iraqi tribes in the Baghdad area reached agreements with the United

States and Iraqi forces for the first time to oppose al-Qaida. These tribe members fought alongside al-Qaida in the past, and they are now providing our troops with information about their former allies.

We are at a critical point in our fight against al-Qaida and the extreme terrorist insurgents. I urge my colleagues to look at the long- term consequences of prematurely abandoning our mission in Iraq. Anyone who believes we can bring an abrupt end to our involvement in this conflict and still conduct successful counterterrorism operations in Iraq is wrong. Defeat in Iraq will come with a hefty price that will be paid by future generations of Americans. If the United States leaves, there will be a regional explosion of Islamic terrorism and extremism that will throw the entire Middle East into greater upheaval. The Iraqi Government may well collapse and throw the country into a state of chaos. Iran will dominate the Middle East, and our national security will be severely compromised.

It is because of these consequences that we should allow General Petraeus and the troop surge the opportunity to succeed. We cannot pull the rug out from underneath him right after we give him more tools to try to succeed in his mission. That would be both irresponsible and unfair. We promised to give him until September to report back with the progress on the surge, and we should hold true to this promise. That is 2 months from now--2 months from now.

Finally, I also wish to address the efforts made by some of my colleagues across the aisle to overturn effective policies that we have in place to fight against terrorism.

I oppose changing the 2006 Military Commissions Act to give legal rights to suspected terrorists. Detained enemy combatants are not ordinary criminal defendants and are not entitled to a trial in a civilian court, or to habeas corpus review.

Make no mistake about it, these terrorists are at war with us and we should treat them like it. We already have the mechanisms in place for detainees to challenge their enemy combatant status. These procedures are more protective of detainees' rights than any military commission in American history.

I find it ridiculous that we are faced with debating this issue again. The Senate has already voted on four separate occasions in the past 2 years to ensure that suspected terrorists do not have automatic access to Federal courts to challenge the legality of their detention.

How many more times are we going to be forced to vote on this issue? Let me be clear. I oppose weakening our current procedures. The changes being proposed will only end up strengthening the rights of terrorists.

I also oppose efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I realize there have been several negative reports and stories in the media in the past about this facility.

Let me set the record straight. The vision of Guantanamo Bay the media tries to portray to the American people is very different from the reality of the facility. I have personally visited the facility at Guantanamo Bay and found it to be nothing like what is described in the media. The facility includes air-conditioning, good meals, religious worship areas, and a top-notch hospital and health care facility. The terrorists there are treated with dignity while they show contempt for our troops. Don't forget that these terrorists are the worst of the worst. They are all extremely dangerous.

The job our troops do there is critical to our war effort. If those terrorists stay locked up there, they cannot harm us and they cannot bomb and do all the things that are being done presently more effectively in Iraq by being detained in Guantanamo Bay. And they do provide us with intelligence.

I applaud our troops for their efforts. They are working very hard to secure our freedom. It is thanks to their efforts and those made in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism that our Nation's freedoms remain protected. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces and their families sacrifice on a daily basis for our freedoms because they believe their mission is too great to fail. I ask my colleagues: Are we really ready to declare their mission already lost? Are we really ready to do that when we finally have discovered a new method of attack?

I, for one, am ready to stand behind our troops and stand side by side with General Petraeus. I will vote against any amendments that restrict the flexibility of our military commanders to run this war or hurt our fight to end terrorism. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

About 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I said this before, but here we go again. Three weeks ago, a significant majority of the Senate rejected this flawed immigration bill and the flawed process that led to it. But now it is back.

One of the key reasons the bill failed the first time around was the flawed process or the lack of process that led to the bill. In the Senate, an idea normally takes months, if not years, to become a bill and pass. But instead of letting the bill develop through the deliberative process, a few Senators and a few people from the administration wrote the bill in secret.

They held no committee meetings, there were no hearings, there was no committee report. In fact, Senators did not even see the whole bill until several days into the debate. When those of us who were not part of the secret negotiations finally saw the bill, we found all kinds of problems. But we were told the bill had to be finished by a certain date. We were not even allowed an open debate on the floor.

So with a few days looming before the Fourth of July recess, a few negotiators got back together and blessed another list of amendments to get votes. Apparently, they believe that 20 or more votes equals a full debate. What a joke.

As if that were not bad enough, the majority leader is taking an unprecedented step to shut off the right of Senators to debate and amend the bill. That is not the Senate. The process is not the only thing that is flawed around here; the bill itself is flawed.

In 1986--thank God I was not in Congress--Congress passed an amnesty bill that was promised to be the last of the amnesty bills. Here we are 20 years later, and the problem is much worse, much, much worse. The bill is no better. Instead of punishing illegal immigrants and employers who ignore the law, this bill is a get-out-of-jail-free pass. It gives those who broke the law their own VIP line to a green card and citizenship.

For this bill to work as promised, the Government would have to process at least 12 million illegal immigrants in a matter of months. In short, the timeframe the Government would have to conduct these background checks, issue identification cards, and to build a system to check every employee in America to make sure they are legal, that is the timeframe.

The Government would also have to implement new guest worker programs, eliminate the green card backlog, overhaul the green card system, and start issuing new visitor visas. But I do not believe it will work, and the American people certainly do not believe it will work. I am not talking about the far left or the far right; I am talking about middle America--middle America.

I am talking about the people who are stuck in the lines in passport offices, waiting on the Government, waiting for them so they can go on a summer vacation. We are supposed to believe that the same Government that cannot even get passports into the hands of their people is going to complete background checks on from 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants, give them a secure ID card, check every employee in the United States to verify their work status, and secure the borders.

I don't think so. Unfortunately, this bill does not even secure the borders. The $4.4 billion included in the bill does not add any new border security. It only funds the trigger requirements of the bill which do not even require implementation of existing laws such as building the 700 miles of border fence and the 43,000 detention spaces.

There are other problems, too. The bill does not require background checks to be completed of illegal immigrants getting amnesty before they get their visas. The bill gives Social Security credits to illegal aliens for work they did illegally. Illegal aliens with terrorist connections can get amnesty, and they do not have to pay all their back taxes or learn any English at least for 10 years. What a deal. The bottom line is the bill will not work.

It is much worse than the status quo. Any chance of fixing it is being erased by the handful of negotiators and the majority leader. Instead of trying to fix the bill, the majority leader is using unprecedented tactics to ensure only a few blessed amendments are considered. We all have amendments, such as the Senator from Texas. None of them are going to be considered.

I will not support amnesty. I will not repeat the mistakes we made 20 years ago. I will not be responsible for tens of millions more illegal immigrants coming into this country waiting for the next amnesty. I will not support this process or this bill.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for yielding me the time.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Charles J. Martinez of Bowling Green, KY, on being recognized as a winner of the Library of Congress's 2007 Letters About Literature competition.

Letters About Literature is a reading and writing program sponsored by the Library's Center for the Book. Throughout the country more than 56,000 young readers in grades 4 through 12 participated in the program, which encourages young kids to read and write a letter to their favorite author, of any era, whose books inspired them.

Charles chose to write about author J.K. Rowling's ``Harry Potter'' series. He was one of two winners chosen this year in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Charles for his dedication and commitment to reading and writing. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must encourage more young people like Charles to read and write as often as possible. He represents Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. President, today I also pay tribute to Carley Smith of Harrodsburg, KY, on being recognized as a winner of the Library of Congress's 2007 Letters About Literature competition.

Letters About Literature is a reading and writing program sponsored by the

Library's Center for the Book. Throughout the country more than 56,000 young readers in grades 4 through 12 participated in the program, which encourages young kids to read and write a letter to their favorite author, of any era, whose books inspired them.

Carley chose to write about author Judith Guest's ``Ordinary People.'' She was one of two winners chosen this year in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Carley for her dedication and commitment to reading and writing. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must encourage more young people like Carley to read and write as often as possible. She represents Kentucky at its finest.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 12 to 15 minutes.

Madam President, today I rise to speak in opposition to the so-called Employee Free Choice Act which we defeated by cloture vote. But cloture votes don't necessarily kill a bill; they have a way of resurrecting themselves, as we are about to do with the immigration bill.

Oftentimes in Congress, the people who write bills try to come up with some interesting titles for their bills, something they hope will make people remember it or tell them something about what it does. Many times, these titles can be somewhat misleading. This bill's title, the Employee Free Choice Act, takes this concept to a whole new level.

The Employee Free Choice Act actually removes choice from the employees. It removes the right of a secret ballot in elections--a cornerstone of American democracy under current law. If a group of employees wants to form a union, they must collect petition signatures or sign cards known as card checks. If 30 percent of the workers sign in favor of creating a union, then they or their employer has a right to request a secret ballot election to decide on forming a union. This election is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, a neutral board of observers created by the Federal Government.

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act would change all of this. This legislation would overturn 70 years of labor law and allow unions to form in workplaces without a private ballot election by the workers. Instead, if unions could twist the arms of just over half of the employees to sign cards expressing consent, then the union is automatically certified as the union for all of the workers. Unions would be allowed to collect signatures just about anyplace: at the workplace, at home, at grocery stores, and at other places. It is easy to see how union persuasion tactics could become harassment of those who do not wish to publicly declare support for union representation.

What would politics be like if Senators and Representatives simply had to convince people to sign cards instead of voting secretly at the polls? Imagine if there were no private voting booths where people could vote their conscience privately. Small armies of campaign volunteers would hang around your house, drop by your children's school, or find you at church in the hopes of securing your signature.

Then if you signed the card, your vote is made public for your employer, your neighbors or anyone else to see. This is why we currently use this secret ballot protection for union organizations in the first place.

In the past, there were concerns that elections held without privacy would be observed by employers, and then if an employee voted to unionize, they would suffer some sort of reprisals. Apparently, my colleagues supporting this bill and their allies in big labor no longer fear employer reprisals. I think it is great that they now trust employers to observe how their workers vote to join a union. We have made a lot of progress in labor-management relationships, apparently.

However, I don't think these ballot choices should be unprotected and out in the open for both union organizers and employers to see. Whenever privacy in elections is compromised, the door is open to intimidation and coercion. Why take a chance on that? It would seem that big labor feels they can increase union membership if they know how many employees are voting on organizing. I wonder what they plan to do with this information to achieve their goals of creating more unions.

Americans enjoy the right to join a union, but the decision to join a union should be freely made in private and without intimidation or coercion. That is the only way to ensure that the choice is truly free and not forced.

According to the National Labor Relations Board, drives to form unions are successful around 60 percent of the time under the rules in place now--60 percent of the time. That is the highest it has been in 20 years. Back then, the union success rate was under 50 percent. So there is no indication that it

is more difficult now to convince workers to organize a union than before. So why does big labor want to change this system? They don't want to ever lose these elections. Even though they win most of these elections, union membership has declined significantly in the past few years. The percentage of employees in labor unions is down from 20 percent in 1983 to 12 percent today. Because labor unions simply are not as attractive to workers as they once were, labor bosses have come to Congress to demand a legislative mandate designed to circumvent private ballot elections. They want more dues-paying members.

Throughout this debate, there is a clear example of hypocrisy in the argument in favor of the new card check system. Under current law, the process to certify a union is the same as the process to decertify a union. However, this bill and its supporters are silent on this matter. Apparently, they believe that when it comes to removing a union, workers will be best served by a secret ballot. But when it comes to forming one, they don't deserve that protection. This kind of logic and inconsistency is further proof that this proposal is half-baked and indefensible.

Congress should not empower big labor bosses by depriving individual workers of their right to be free of intimidation. Taking away private ballot elections and subjecting workers to undue pressure and coercion goes against the basic principles on which this country was founded. The secret ballot election must be protected at the workplace.

I understand the new majority in Congress feels they owe a great deal of debt to their allies in big labor for the success they enjoyed in November of 2006. That is why we are considering this flawed bill. As the majority, they can bring up any piece of legislation they choose. Fair enough. However, this bill is purely political payback in its worst kind of policy. I urge my colleagues--which they have done in the first instance--to vote against considering this piece of legislation, as they did when we had our cloture vote earlier today.

This is a personal aside. In 1964, I was a professional athlete. We were forming a players' union at the time so we could compete with the owners on an equal basis when it came to negotiations. We acquired 30 percent of the signatures from our players and we had an election. But it was a private-ballot election and 85 percent of the ballots collected were in favor of forming that union. I think the same should go with every union that is trying to be formed under the circumstances in today's market. Not only did we form a union, we formed one of the most successful unions in the history of the United States of America. Now all players at the major league level are covered by that union and represented by that union. The benefits derived by that player union in major league baseball have been significant--the same as most unions would have when they do it correctly with a private ballot.

I thank my colleagues for voting against cloture today. I urge them, if it comes back to the floor again, to do likewise.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank Senator Kyl for yielding. I rise in support of amendment No. 1733 that would prevent the tax increases in this bill from going into effect if the tax provisions raise gasoline prices or increase our dependency on foreign oil. I voted against these tax increases in the Finance Committee, and I strongly oppose all the tax increases in this bill. But there is one provision I oppose in particular. I am referring to the 13-percent severance tax on oil and gas leases.

There are several reasons why the Federal Government will never see the $10.6 billion allegedly raised by this provision and why we should not, under the banner of tax law, confiscate property. Very simply, the United States should not break its contracts. A deal is a deal. The Clinton administration bid out these lease contracts in the Gulf of Mexico in 1998 and 1999, more than 1,000 of them. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, the small number of performing leases--about 20 of them-- look like a bad deal for the Government. That may be true. Some leases negotiated before and after the period in question have 12.5 percent royalty rates. These leases have a zero rate.

On the other hand, the favorable terms that Senator Bingaman complains about encourage the oil companies to pay more at the outset to drill in deeper waters. Senator Bingaman knows he cannot tear up the contracts he does not like, so he has proposed an unprecedented and unusual targeted severance tax that falls almost exclusively on the current holders of these leases. This tax is so unusual, the Federal Government has never imposed a severance tax on resources, and we never have enacted a tax that can be offset by royalty payments.

If there is any doubt about the purpose of this tax, Senator Bingaman cleared that up earlier today when he explained the tax will not impact future leaseholders. The only people who actually pay this 13 percent tax are the holders of the leases Senator Bingaman thinks are a bad deal. As Senator Bingaman explained, future leases are expected to have a royalty rate higher than the tax, and royalties can be used to offset the tax under Senator Bingaman's scheme. The problem with this is Congress cannot reverse contracts legislatively without paying compensation. The Supreme Court has said as much in two recent cases: Winstar and Mobil Oil. What is more, the Federal courts have said Congress cannot use its taxing power to break or modify a Government contract.

But that is precisely what this measure aims to do. If we enact this legislation, we will cast a small degree of doubt on every contract the Federal Government ever writes. We will raise the cost of Government today and for generations because every contractor will wonder whether their Congress might step in to claw back the benefits of the deal.

Here is a true story. During the savings and loan crisis, Federal regulators tried to encourage healthy thrifts to buy up failing thrifts to stabilize the savings and loan industry. They agreed to more lenient regulatory standards and tax benefits that would be available to the healthy thrifts. Later, when the cost of the savings and loan bailout became a concern, Congress enacted laws that took back some of these benefits. One of these laws was the Guarini amendment, a targeted tax provision. Similar to the Bingaman severance tax, the law seemed to raise revenue on paper. But in the end, the Federal courts reversed themselves, and the Federal Government paid out millions in damages for breach of contract. The same Federal court that decided these cases has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether the 13-percent severance tax is legal. I am not optimistic.

We should make sure this provision never becomes law by voting for the Kyl amendment. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It will raise gasoline prices across the board, not lower them, by imposing additional costs on the American oil and gas companies. Most of them are small companies that risk capital to search for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Bunning, et al., fuel amendment No. 1628. Senator Hatch has asked to be listed as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, for too long America has ignored its energy security. Many of us can remember the energy crisis in the 1970s. We were held ransom by a monopolistic oil cartel and forced to endure shortages, gas lines, and high prices. In the early 1980s, just as America began to invest in alternative fuels, the oil-producing states of the world crashed prices to make new technology uncompetitive. During most of the last 25 years, we have enjoyed low prices and plentiful supplies. But we have had to pay a price. Today, we find that America is addicted to oil.

September 11, 2001, and the hurricanes in the gulf region have shown the

fragile state of our energy markets. Domestic disasters and terrorism can send energy prices spiraling out of control. Our energy resources are stretched to the limit and small supply disruptions ripple throughout the entire economy. I believe all Americans, as they see continued instability in the Middle East, China, and India, and sustained gasoline prices around $3.50, $4 a gallon, can see an energy crisis on the horizon.

As you can see from the chart I have here, our production of energy has almost stayed completely flat and will stay completely flat until about 2025, unless we do something about it. On the other side, our consumption continues to escalate. So the difference between the two is the crisis at which we are now looking.

This year alone, we will send about $250 billion to foreign countries--mostly in the Middle East--to buy oil, adding to the $7 trillion we have already spent in the last few decades. America has become complacent and overdependent on imported oil. No matter what energy prices are, we need to take responsibility for our reliance on imported energy and develop a secure, domestic fuel source.

I believe part of that effort should be developing coal-to-liquid fuels. America happens to be blessed with significant coal reserves. Coal powers our homes and businesses. Fifty-two percent of our electricity is derived from coal. It has long been America's most abundant fuel resource and has driven our economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. Coal-to-liquid technology lets America capitalize on a domestic resource. Every dollar invested in coal-to- liquid production will stay in America, grow our economy, and create jobs. By displacing payments to foreign oil companies with domestic investment, we will actually increase the amount of funding available for other alternative fuels. It will lower energy prices for American families, improve the environment, create thousands of jobs, and bring billions of dollars in new investment to our local communities.

Many of you may be asking one question right now: If this technology is so great and could replace expensive imports from the Middle East, why hasn't it been done already?

The answer is simple: Costs and market uncertainty. A typical size coal-to-liquid plant costs between $3 billion and $5 billion to construct. With complicated plans and environmental permits, a new plant could take 5 to 8 years to build. This is a challenge for even the biggest risk takers on Wall Street. Raising the capital needed to develop a new technology is always difficult, but the multibillion dollar investment scale of a coal-to-liquid plant has made it nearly impossible.

On top of this is the uncertainty of the price of oil. Yesterday, oil hit $69.09 cents a barrel--an all-time high. Soon we will be seeing $70 prices on a barrel of oil. We have seen this dramatic rise in the last few years. But investors are concerned that oil prices could drop to the low levels of the 1980s and make coal-to-liquid plants uncompetitive again.

But even if oil prices were to drop that low in the next few decades, I believe CTL would more than pay for itself by insulating us from supply shocks and providing a secure domestic fuel source for our military, businesses such as airlines and trucking, and the average American car.

The challenge for America is to leverage the private investment required for these large, expensive plants. U.S. investors remember the last time synthetic fuels were promoted in the 1970s, and remember the losses they took as oil prices collapsed in the 1980s. The scale of investment, uncertainty of oil prices, and a complicated environmental permitting process have prevented the industry from taking root in the United States.

We need to take aggressive steps now to ensure that America does not continue to face high heating and gasoline costs and rely so heavily on unstable and dangerous parts of the world for our energy. I believe the answer is to provide Government support to get coal-to-liquid technology off the ground. At least it is one of the things we must consider.

With modest initial investments, we can kick-start the industry and then the Government will get out of the way and let the marketplace take over. I would rather the Government not have any involvement in coal-to-liquids, but this industry needs assistance because of the threat of OPEC, oil tyrants like Hugo Chavez, and technology challenges.

While these are legitimate challenges facing coal to liquid, another issue has become more and more prominent during this debate. In the last few weeks, the environmental rhetoric has been strongly against coal fuels. Unfortunately, too many people have repeated it without checking the facts. The picture opponents of coal paint is far from the truth about our fight for energy independence. It shows the same misinformed biases found in anti-coal advertisements and environmental newsletters.

I want to tell you clearly and without reservation that coal-to- liquid fuel will be a clean part of our energy future.

I want to show you another chart. While some may remember urban diesel pollution problems, coal to liquid will be significantly cleaner than existing fuels in terms of air pollutants such as sulfur, particulate matter, nitrogen, and aromatics. Air Force tests, laboratory tests, and environmental reports all show that coal-to- liquid fuels will reduce the air pollutants that pose a threat to human health.

As you can see when you compare diesel and well-to-wheel urban emissions, compared to low-sulfur, petroleum-based diesels, you can see organic compounds, carbon monoxide, pollutants, particulate matter, and SOX, all decreasing in the coal-to-liquid area. But all of these improvements and the promise of energy security are wiped away by misleading claims that coal to liquid would produce twice as many carbon emissions as conventional fuel. That is not true.

The production of coal-to-liquid fuels does release carbon twice-- once during gasification and another when burned like conventional fuels in engines. But that does not mean coal-to-liquid plants have to release twice as much carbon emissions.

My amendment requires carbon capture--listen to this. I hope some people in their offices are listening to this. My amendment requires carbon capture, but recognizes that there are limits to this technology today. Carbon capture is only part of the emissions model. Nearly all of the developers we have worked with want to use biomass coal-blended feedstock to achieve emissions reductions.

Believe me, I have studied coal to liquid extensively. Reports from the EPA, DOE, Princeton University, and the Idaho National Laboratories has shown the coal-to-liquids lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate will vary dramatically based on the technology, feedstocks, and process used. These researchers have shown that the coal-to-liquid process could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral. I will repeat that. These researchers have shown that the coal-to-liquid process could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral--no carbon emissions. This is not pie-in-the-sky research. Using some of the same ideas, a planned plant in Ohio--one that will need some Government support to get started--will produce coal-to-liquid diesel that has 46 percent less carbon emissions than diesel fuel made presently from oil--46 percent less.

On chart 3, we show greenhouse gas emissions. This chart shows the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions of different kinds of fuel based on the analysis of the Idaho National Lab. On the left, we have diesel fuel, coal-to-liquid fuels with no environmental technology, coal to liquid that uses carbon capture, and coal to liquid that uses carbon capture and biomass. As we can see by the chart, coal to liquid can be very clean. That is our goal.

For comparison, I included gasoline and ethanol blends on the right. If we support coal to liquids and let the industry develop these carbon capture and biomass technologies, we will reduce emissions more than corn-based E85 and more than cellulosic E10. That is currently what everybody wants to do. E85 is the big savior. The new cellulosic ethanol, E10, is the big savior. As we can see by this chart, that is not true because the emissions at the end of the line with cellulosic E10 and corn E85 are all higher than the coal to liquids mixed with biomass. That is the truth. Those are facts.

The sector should be given time, just as everyone else, to develop the best technology and not rely on Congress to pick it for them. That is why my coal-to-liquid fuel amendment sets the environmental standard for coal to liquids at the same aggressive 20-percent life cycle reduction that Chairman Bingaman requires for biofuels. The very same reduction that Chairman Bingaman in his Energy bill requires of biofuels is the one I have in this amendment. Every gallon of coal to liquids made with the help of my amendment would meet this standard and would be a gallon of oil we do not have to buy from the Middle East.

While I have shown that limited Government support is necessary and coal-to-liquid fuels will be as clean as biofuels, another reason to support coal-to-liquid fuels is national security.

I want my colleagues to look at this chart because this is the most important part of coal-to-liquid technology, and putting it on this Energy bill.

The military is the largest single purchaser in this country, and the Air Force consumes 50 percent of this total. I have spoken many times with the Secretary of the Air Force, and I am proud to say he has taken the lead on developing this domestic resource.

Last year, the Air Force spent nearly $7 billion--$7 billion--alone on aviation fuels, which was over budget by $1.6 billion. For every $1 change in the price of a barrel of oil, it costs the Air Force about $60 million a year. That dramatic impact is 10 times worse for our commercial airlines.

As we can see, if we do it the right way, we can produce enough of our aviation fuel from this technology with a change in the way the Air Force buys their fuels. If we change it from 5 to 20 years in terms of the amount of time they can contract for, we can have this kind of dramatic impact for our military.

With this in mind, last summer, the Air Force tested jet fuel with a 50-percent mix of Fischer-Tropsch fuel--that is the coal-to-liquid process--in a B-52 bomber. The results of these tests so far are nothing short of outstanding. We already knew these fuels are nearly zero in sulfur and very low in nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions, but we are learning very new benefits.

During these tests, the Air Force demonstrated this fuel we are talking about burns significantly cleaner and burns significantly cooler than conventional jet fuel. These characteristics allow our jets to have a smaller radar profile and lower heat signature. And these advantages translate into better mileage, reducing both fuel costs, as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

In light of this successful assessment, the Air Force plans to test this fuel in the C-17 cargo plane this year, and it is embracing the goal of certifying the entire fleet of aircraft by 2016.

By that time, the Air Force intends to meet 50 percent of its annual fuel needs, more than 1.3 billion gallons, with Fischer-Tropsch fuel. Coal-to-liquid fuel will provide a safety net for our military to ensure a stable fuel supply regardless of the global politics of oil, but only if we build a domestic industry to make the fuel for them.

Let me turn to the two amendments we will consider today. I am asking that my colleagues support the Bunning-Domenici amendment that I have offered with Senator Craig, Senator Enzi, Senator Martinez, and Senator Hatch. Our amendment is the only amendment that will help create a domestic coal-to-liquids industry, is a separate program that will not compete with biofuels in any way, requires coal to liquids meet the same 20 percent life cycle reduction of greenhouse gases that biofuels must meet--the rest of this bill requires that--requires coat-to-liquid facilities to capture carbon dioxide, and mandates only one-sixth as much fuel as the renewable fuel standard.

I am also urging my colleagues to oppose the Tester-Bingaman amendment. This amendment is not--and I emphasize this--is not a coal- to-liquid amendment. It sets an irresponsible environmental standard and will just kick Government support for this fuel into the future.

Their amendment is opposed by 23 members of the coal-to-liquid coalition, including industry, airlines, railroads, and others.

It sets strict technology mandates for emissions that will stifle innovation and prevent nearly all domestic coal-to-liquid plants from moving forward.

It limits the availability of the loan to 50 percent of the plant cost, making it less effective than the already existing DOE program that we passed in 2005.

It will take years in DOE rulemaking before the first dollar is ever allocated for a plant.

In the greatest deception of all, it does not require coal to be used in the coal-to-liquid process.

Let me say that again so everybody understands. The biggest deception of all is that the Tester-Bingaman amendment does not even require coal to be used in the coal-to-liquid process.

I am committed to the coal-to-liquid fuel as a secure domestic and environmentally sound fuel. The Tester amendment looks at coal to liquids as an afterthought. I think my proposal should be adopted for any one of a dozen arguments that we have made for coal-to-liquid fuels. It will create jobs, bring down the price of fuel, bring down the price of what we pay at the pump, fuel our military, but basically displace foreign oil, enhance our national security, add value to our coal resources, and improve our environment.

But my final and perhaps most important point is that coal-to-liquid fuels deserve fair treatment. I ask that my colleagues look at what we have done for biofuels in America and the benefits we have given to our farmers. Communities throughout the Midwest are uniting to invest in ethanol and biomass. Money from Wall Street is flowing into our rural communities, developing infrastructure and creating jobs. In many parts of America, I have seen new hope in agriculture and new ways for farmers to realize greater values for their crops.

It all started with the ethanol fuel mandate. My amendment will create the exact same mandate for coal-to-liquid fuel with the same environmental standards. I think our coal communities deserve the same support we gave our farm community.

Will you tell the Governors of the Southern States, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, North Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana that you oppose their efforts to bring coal-to-liquid plants to their States?

Will you tell the men and women who serve as coal miners, construction workers, truckdrivers, train conductors, and plant operators that they deserve less support than our farmers?

Will you tell all Americans that you would rather keep buying oil from the Middle East instead of making fuel in America?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, words cannot express how sad I am that my good friend Craig Thomas passed away last night. We will all truly miss his tenacious advocacy on issues, his incredible sense of humor, and his upstanding character and integrity. The Senate will not be the same without him.

I have known Craig for almost 20 years. I first became friends with him when we both served in the House of Representatives. We continued our friendship in the Senate, where I had the great fortune of serving with him on both the Senate Finance and Senate Energy Committees.

Craig was a tireless advocate for Wyoming issues. He was an effective leader in energy, public lands, tax, trade, health, and rural community issues. We stood side by side on many issues, and I always felt we could accomplish any project because I had Craig by my side.

He and I worked closely on energy issues in both committees. Craig was skilled at keeping his eyes on the details that mattered to the people back home in Wyoming. Recently, we worked together on a small issue in the landmark Energy Policy Act of 2005 that he helped craft. We learned that western coals, because of their naturally low sulfur content, would be excluded from certain clean coal programs for failing to remove the high percentage mandated by the bill. This was one of those little things that slipped by many people but not Craig. We have already fixed the problem in the Tax Code and are now working to do the same in the Energy Committee. It was the little things he did for the people of Wyoming that made him such a great Senator for his State.

Craig also pushed to make sure that both his State and the Nation had an effective energy policy. Just a couple of weeks ago, Craig and I sponsored an amendment during markup of the Energy Committee biofuels bill to attempt to push coal-to-liquids technology into reality. Thomas believed this would help both the people of Wyoming by providing more jobs and cheaper energy costs and would help the Nation by reducing our reliance on Middle East oil. And although this amendment failed in committee, his dogged determination showed through

because he planned to continue fighting this issue on the Senate floor.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Susan and his children, Lexie, Greg, Patrick, and Peter. They have shown incredible courage and strength the past few months.

I am honored to have known Senator Thomas. He impacted all of our lives and will be sorely missed.

Mr. President, I would like to honor a colleague and a good friend, Senator Ted Stevens, for becoming the longest serving Republican Member of the Senate. I am honored to serve in the Senate with this great Republican.

Ted Stevens' career in public service began long before he became a U.S. Senator. He served in the U.S. Army Air Corps during WWII, practiced law in Alaska, worked in the Eisenhower administration, and served in the Alaska House of Representatives where he eventually became majority leader. He became U.S. Senator in 1968 and has served the State of Alaska in the Senate for over 39 years. His longstanding public service career truly demonstrates his devotion to this country.

Just like his famous Hulk tie, Ted has a bullish tenacity that has made him one of the most effective Members in the Senate. He is a stalwart representative for his State of Alaska. Representing a State over 4,000 miles from the Nation's Capital, Senator Stevens has sacrificed time with his six children and wife to serve in the Senate. Coming from a large family myself, I appreciate the strength and commitment his family has displayed over the years.

During my trips to Alaska, I always leave impressed by the spectacular landscape and Ted Stevens' hard work in his State. His work has helped many Alaskan towns receive clean running water and has enabled many children to receive a quality education. His persistence in the Senate also has provided Alaska with oil pipelines, which have brought tremendous revenue to Alaska and provided our Nation with a safe, domestic energy source.

Ted Stevens' work as a Senator has also gone beyond the borders of Alaska. During his 35-year tenure on the Appropriations Committee, he has tirelessly persevered to keep America ready and prepared. He has ensured our troops have the good equipment, training, and pay they deserve. His efforts

have also ensured funds for military research on some of our Nation's most pressing diseases.

I thank Senator Ted Stevens for his leadership and contributions to public service for the people of Alaska and all Americans. I honor him not only for his length of service but more importantly, his quality of service. I wish him and his loved ones the best of health for many years to come, and I congratulate him on his outstanding achievement.

Madam President, today I congratulate Detective Steven Silfies of Hopkinsville, KY. Detective Silfies was recently recognized as the ``2006 Trooper of the Year'' by the Kentucky State Police.

Detective Silfies is a 4-year veteran of the Kentucky State Police Force. He is assigned to Kentucky State Police Post 2 located in Madisonville, KY. Prior to joining the Kentucky State Police, Detective Silfies served more than two decades in the U.S. Army. This includes tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He also currently serves as de- facto liaison officer with personnel at Fort Campbell.

Detective Silfies truly exemplifies what it means to serve and protect the citizens of Kentucky. During the past year, Detective Silfies has played an integral role in the investigation of six murders. His devotion has led to two arrests in those investigations. Silfies also has played a prominent role in the solving of several cold cases. These include an arrest in a 27-year-old case of an out-of-State resident. Detective Silfies took a leading role in another cold case involving an out-of-State resident. This was a 13-year-old case in which Silfies uncovered overlooked evidence.

I congratulate Detective Silfies on this achievement. To be singled out among such a dedicated police force is truly an honor. He is an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to dedicated police everywhere. I look forward to seeing all that he will accomplish in the future.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Sessions and thank him for his input and insight into what has gone on for the last 8 weeks or 10 weeks. I thank the Senator for his explanation today on his perception of what is in this bill. I wish to add a few other comments, and I do have a couple charts that are on their way down to the Chamber.

I rise to address some of the concerns I have about last week's so- called immigration compromise and the way it is being shoved--or trying to be shoved--through the Senate this week. Last week's so-called immigration agreement is not a compromise in the traditional sense of the word. The proposal was written in secret by a small group of Senators and our current administration. This bill may not be a compromise, but it is compromising to this country's economy, national security, and the very foundation as a democracy rooted in the rule of law.

America is a democracy operating under the rule of law. Since the very beginning of the American experiment, people came from all over this world--many countries with corrupt governments--where the law only applied to some and could be bought by the highest bidder for others. They came to live where the Government respects the individual and where the individual respects the law.

From our recent history, we have seen an alarming increase in immigration from people who don't think they have to wait in line or play by our rules. Instead of punishing these people, a few Senators and the administration have crafted a large-scale ``get out of jail free'' pass. No matter what you call it--X, Y, or Z visas--this bill will grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants all over this country. My wife and I, our 9 kids, and our 35 grandkids are all descendants of immigrants. Mary and I have taught our family to be grateful for our Nation's rich tradition of immigration. But more importantly, we have tried to instill in our family a deep respect of law. Appreciating the contributions the immigrant brings to our Nation does not mean we will surrender the right of our Nation and its citizens to decide who comes here.

Like many people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and all over this Nation, I have serious concerns about an immigration policy that rewards lawbreakers. Is granting amnesty to those who were lucky enough to be born or get to one of our border countries, and enter our country illegally, fair to those potential immigrants who have been waiting in other parts of the

world? I wonder what message does rewarding those who willfully break the law send to our Nation's young people? What message does it send to the rest of the world? Doesn't it make everyone who is trying to play by the rules seem foolish? More practically, how many people do you think are going to come over our borders? Are you going to reward 5 million people for breaking the law or will it be 10 million or maybe 20 million? Isn't it a distinct possibility this bill will grant amnesty to those who came here only to do our Nation harm? These are questions I am willing to get serious about for the American people, but is anyone else?

Today we are going to have a vote to move the process forward. Some things are clear. This bill will grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, period. It is true. It also creates a massive new guest worker program for low-skilled workers that does not truly limit costs to the system. What remains unclear is how much this great compromise will cost. If you look closely, the numbers are staggering.

In 2004, there were about 4.5 million low-skill immigrant households in the United States--about 5 percent of our population. That number has only gone up. Let's look at this chart. Each of these households pays about $10,500 in taxes. That is less than almost every other American household. What is more alarming is how much they are receiving. Each of these households receives an average of $30,000 a year in immediate benefits. So they earn, or bring in, $10,000, and they get benefits of $30,000. That means each low-skilled amnesty household could cost the American taxpayer approximately $20,000 each year. Well, actually, $19,588, or twice what they are paying in.

Let's go to the second chart. If we look at a breakdown in what they are receiving, that $30,000 a year in Social Security, Medicare, and transfer programs, cash, food, housing, social services, medical care, public education, and population-based services such as police and fire, $30,000 seems like a pretty hefty welcome basket just for crossing our borders. Here shows all the other benefits, and it all adds up to $30,160. These are the benefits I described.

We will go now to chart 3. Most American families are taxpayers during their working years and tax-takers during their retirement years. Not so with the low-skilled amnesty family. The low-skilled amnesty household takes more from the Government than it pays in at every level. Therefore, claims that we save Social Security and other programs by importing young immigrant workers are simply a myth. You can see that households under 25 pay in $8,000 and take out $14,295; heads of household from 25 to 34, $10,000 paid in, benefits of $25,485; households whose head is 35 to 44, $12,000 paid in, $34,000 in benefits, all the way down to where the biggest burden is when that immigrant family and the head of that household becomes 65 or over, and they pay in $4,500 in taxes and other things, and receive $37,500 in benefits.

The most expensive group, of course, is the 65 and older crowd. They cost the American taxpayers on an average of almost $32,000 every year. If we consider only the illegals given amnesty, those costs would add up to over--and this is shocking if you want to think about it--$2 trillion--that is trillion with a T--over the lifetime they are here, from very young when they come in at 25 to when they become 65. There are currently 8 million nonelderly immigrants in low-skilled households. Eight million. Can you imagine the strain on Social Security when these people reach retirement age? Right here, where they are receiving the $32,000 in benefits that they don't pay in--they don't match. At that moment the program will be going into crisis--that very moment--because if you add them now, the baby boomers, and they will reach the age of 65 about at the same time. Our Social Security system can't handle that now. What are we to do if we add 10, 15, 20 million more?

The upcoming budget stifles the economy by levying the largest tax increase ever--ever--on American businesses and taxpayers, and what have we left our kids and grandkids? The biggest bill ever that they will not--I say will not--be able to pay.

These may be hard numbers for some people to understand, but I wish to talk for a moment about who will be paying these bills. Look no further than your neighbor, families who have two mid-wage earners, now fall into the top 40 percent of our Nation's wealthy, according to the Internal Revenue Code--wealthy. My daughter Amy and her husband are now wealthy--with four children to raise.

A recent study by the Tax Foundation found these working families, the middle class, are carrying the weight of the Nation's tax burden on their back. And let's not forget about our small business owners. Forty-three percent of the people in the top 20 percent of the tax bracket have business income, meaning they are creating jobs and wealth in our economy. Can you imagine the effect that continued tax increases, which will be inevitable to fund this kind of amnesty program, will have on our middle-class families and our economy? Is anyone willing to get serious about this for the American people?

I don't know about my colleagues, but these numbers, over $2 trillion, are pretty hard for me to comprehend. What is even more unbelievable is no one is talking about them. In fact, the Senate is being asked to pass this incredibly expensive bill in less than 1 week--less than 1 week.

How our Nation chooses to deal with immigration is one of the most serious questions Congress must address. Our immigration policy directly affects our economy, communities, and the rule of law. It requires a thorough, thoughtful, and serious debate. We should be debating each and every one of these issues I have put up here on the chart on the floor of the Senate--not rushing to get something through so that the President can sign it.

But here we are about to vote to proceed to a bill that is not even in bill form. It is 326 written pages. By the time it goes into bill form, it will be close to 1,000 pages, and we don't even have a CBO estimate on the cost--not one CBO estimate. It didn't go through the committee process. At least last year we had a bill that went through the committee process. It was voted out. We spent 2 weeks on the floor of the Senate debating it. So at least last year we had a much more thorough discussion.

The bill we dealt with and are dealing with this year has not even been considered in committee, and we are supposed to pass it by Memorial Day. That is a seriously flawed process. With the many questions that are currently being asked about this bill, we need to debate it thoroughly--each and every questionable paragraph--when they finally get it into bill form.

We are going to have a substitute amendment shortly, after we pass a bill that means absolutely nothing. If they do pass cloture on last year's bill, then the majority leader will propose a substitute to this new bill. Wouldn't it be interesting if someone objected and made the clerk read every sentence in that bill? How long do you think that would take? Two days, maybe more. I know the clerk would be very tired by the time the reading of the bill would be over. I am sure everyone in the Senate would realize exactly the seriousness of this bill. So I am asking all my colleagues in the Senate, let's not rush to judgment on this so-called compromise immigration bill we have before us. Let's consider it like the Senate should consider it. If we are the most deliberative body in the whole world, we should deliberately look at all the nooks and crannies in this compromise bill. I ask my colleagues to do this.

I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Alabama for the time.

He used the figure 12.5 million.

Absolutely.

Will the Senator yield?

I know how desperate some of my construction people are in Kentucky, my horse farmers, the general farm community, the service industry, and the motels and hotels, for workers to be here, but they have to be here in legal form. They cannot be here and cheating to get across the border. We have to have legal immigration to service those jobs. I don't think this bill gets us there. That is why I have serious doubts that it is the right vehicle to take care of those workers we want to make sure get here to service our economy.

Madam President, I would like to talk today about the House-Senate budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 21, and the many reasons I oppose it. Overall, the budget resolution contemplates a staggering amount of spending: $15.5 trillion of total budget authority from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2008 alone, the resolution provides for nearly $3 trillion in spending, yet a significant part of that spending is unfunded, or it comes from the Social Security surplus.

On its face, the budget resolution increases the gross debt by $2.5 trillion over 5 years, but this figure understates the true impact of this misguided decision on our economy. In order to fund $2.5 trillion in additional national debt, the Treasury Department will have to sell Government bonds. Its demand for credit will drive up interest rates, making homes more expensive and curtailing economic activity that creates jobs. There is no restraint. The resolution calls for $205 billion more in discretionary spending than called for in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget.

Not content to ``tax'' Americans with the higher interest rates that will result from deficit spending, the authors of this resolution are endorsing real tax increases as well. The budget resolution's failure to provide for extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will result

in an enormous $736 billion tax hike on families, seniors, and businesses.

True, the resolution provides for the extension of certain popular tax cuts that Congress enacted, such as the child tax credit, but it also places a substantial new obstacle in the way of enacting even these cuts. This is the so-called trigger mechanism that Chairman Gregg and others have discussed in detail.

Finally, even with the higher interest rates, tax increases, and procedural barriers to tax cuts this resolution contains, it still relies on raiding the Social Security surplus to achieve the appearance of budget balance at the end of the day. I tried to stop this by including language in the Senate passed version of this resolution, but unfortunately, the conferees took this provision out of the final bill.

Get ready, America. Your taxes are about to go up.

Madam President, on behalf of the Republican side, I object.

Madam President, I was precluded from speaking prior to the vote taken on the Iraq supplemental. I am going to speak for about 15 minutes at this time and voice my strong opposition, as Senator Shelby, to the conference report that just passed this body. This bill is a highly irresponsible bill showing both a disregard for taxpayer money and our American service people. It is probably the most dangerous bill I have seen in over 20 years of service in the Congress of the United States.

I don't say that lightly. Last month I came to the floor to voice my opposition to the emergency supplemental spending bill. I wanted a clean bill that the President could sign into law. Instead, today we passed a bill that ties troop funding to arbitrary withdrawal deadlines and billions and billions of dollars in unrelated spending.

Now, 3 weeks later, we find ourselves with essentially the same piece of legislation. It is an insult to the men and women who serve in our armed services. Funding our troops is not a political game. We are a nation at war. There are unexpected costs and needs that must be continued to promote our freedoms and troops at home and help them succeed in Iraq. That is why we have emergency supplemental legislation. It is used to meet the immediate needs of the men and women in the Armed Forces on our frontlines.

The extra spending goes beyond emergency needs and, instead, adds additional nondefense funds that are not necessary right now. There is a lot of fat in this bill that the Senate should consider under the regular appropriations process. That is what appropriations bills are all about. The hurricanes of 2005 were truly devastating. I have supported the Government's rebuilding efforts in the region. But the bill before us today includes billions of dollars in unrequested and unnecessary funding for the Corps of Engineers. These provisions are inappropriate for a wartime supplemental.

Another area of extra spending relates to agriculture. I have been a strong supporter of America's farmers, but the programs in this bill do not belong in a supplemental wartime bill. I cannot justify $20 million for dairy farmers and $60 million for salmon fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. This bill is about our troops, not our farmers. There are even more glaring examples in this conference report: $18 million for drought assistance in the upper Midwest; $25 million for NASA facilities in the gulf region; $10 million for historic preservation funds. This bill doubles the 20 million I opposed for asbestos abatement at the Capitol powerplant. The list goes on.

I am ashamed that this Congress believes it can solve its own budgetary problems on the backs of our fighting men and women.

Finally, instead of helping our troops, this supplemental bill only ends up offending them. We ought to be sending a clear message of support for our men and women in harm's way. It should be clear that this Congress and this country will make sure that the men and women of our Armed Forces have the necessary supplies and resources to carry out their missions. Unfortunately, this legislation only serves to undermine our military missions. It pulls the rug right out from under our troops, just as we are at a point of seeing some signs of increased security in Baghdad.

To me, this bill is a strategy for defeat. It sends a detrimental message to our troops and only serves to embolden our enemies. It tells the terrorists: Mark your calendars with our date for withdrawal from Iraq; sit and wait for us to get out.

Like many of my colleagues, I had the opportunity to hear firsthand from my good friend, David Petraeus, yesterday about the current situation in Iraq. I am sorry it was a very highly classified briefing or I would share those things with the Senate. But I want to give the mood of his report. He was very frank in his report. The situation in Iraq is not any closer to being resolved than it was 2 months ago when his mission started. The country still suffers from violent sectarian strife and is at war with a cluster of enemies, including primarily al- Qaida, Osama bin Laden, Sunni insurgents, and Shia radicals. The other side of the aisle has already said the war is lost. But we haven't even given the President's plan a chance to work. We still have a long way to go in Iraq, but sectarian killings have dropped dramatically since January. There is greater cooperation between the U.S. forces and the Iraqi Army, and we are beginning to see the Iraqi people work toward complete sovereignty.

We should not dictate arbitrary guidelines for the future. The Iraqi Government is still in a critical development stage. It must be given the time and room to grow with our guidance. The same Senators and Congressmen calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or setting an arbitrary withdrawal date do not discuss the ramifications of such an action. It may be because they know that immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous to the Middle East and threaten international stability and our national defense. Withdrawal is not a viable option. If we leave Iraq prematurely, we lose. Peace-loving people in Iraq lose, and Islamic radicals and al-Qaida win. That is the situation we are in today. We need to be honest about it as we proceed forward.

I have voted against past withdrawal language and voted against it again today. Setting a withdrawal deadline will have grave consequences for the United States. It will put our national security at risk. After the President vetoes this bill--and we sustain his veto--we need to refocus our attention and our productive manner on how to best help our commanders on the ground to achieve success in Iraq. No arbitrary timetable, no billions of dollars in unrelated pork--we need a clean bill that funds our men and women in uniform and gives them a chance for success.

I yield the floor.