Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 897.

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

Mr. President, we are debating a bill about court security. The court security bill is about the administration of justice. Some would argue that the amendment I have offered, while relating to the courts, does not deal with court security. Both the underlying bill and my amendment deal with the administration of justice. There are provisions in the bill that are not strictly dealing with court security, and I believe this is an appropriate place to talk about this amendment and an appropriate time for the Senate to vote on my amendment. It is something we have been working on for a few years.

My amendment recognizes that the ninth circuit, by far being the largest circuit in the United States, is too large, the administration of justice is too slow, and that the ninth circuit needs to be broken up at this point. It needs to be split up so the people, such as the people who live in the State of Nevada, can receive justice in a way that is fair and that is also expeditious.

In the past, the United States has gotten to a point with other circuits where we have decided that they are too large and need to be split. Some have argued that splitting up the ninth circuit is for ideological reasons, but that is not why I have offered this amendment. Many who used to be opposed to splitting up the ninth circuit 5 or 10 years ago now understand that for the sake of the administration of justice, the ninth circuit needs to be split up. It is by far and away the largest circuit in the United States.

We have had testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee, and many articles have been written, on why so many of the ninth circuit decisions are overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Ninth Circuit, far and away, has more of its decisions overturned by the Supreme Court than any other circuit. Well, Mr. President, we had testimony that one of the reasons a lot of people believe that to be the case is not that the jurists on the Ninth Circuit may be less competent than those in other circuits, but that is because of the overwhelming caseload, the circuit doesn't have the time to consider the cases that other circuits do but the use of the en-banc panel, instead of the full circuit, contributes to this problem.

Mr. President, 20 percent of the country is in the Ninth Circuit. It is laden with immigration cases. It has too many cases per judge and, because of that, too many of the cases that need to be heard in a timely fashion are delayed. What our bill simply would do is to divide the Ninth Circuit up in a very fair manner. We have put this through judges and through studies and over the years we have modified it on exactly how to break it up. If people disagree with how we are deciding to break it up, we can talk about that. But the bottom line is that it is too large of a circuit, and the Ninth Circuit needs to be split up.

I think all but one of the judges in the State of Nevada--by the way, almost all these same judges used to be against splitting up the Ninth Circuit. Today, nearly all of them have come out in favor of splitting up the Ninth Circuit. The reason for that is we live in the fastest growing area in the country. Nevada, in 18 out of the last 19 years, is the fastest growing State. The other States in the Ninth Circuit, including Arizona, California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, all of these States have booming populations. While we are the largest circuit in the United States, it is going to get increasingly worse in the future, as far as the size of the population, the number of cases per judge, while overwhelming now, it is only going to get worse in the future.

I believe this is an amendment that should be discussed as a separate bill on the floor. But we all know most bills cannot get time on the Senate floor. So you have to take the opportunity to offer amendments wherever you can. We have been trying to get this bill acted on for years and years and years. We now have a vehicle, dealing with the courts, where it is appropriate to offer this amendment. So that is why I am offering this amendment today.

Mr. President, again, amendment No. 897 would split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Because my home State of Nevada is under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, I have taken particular interest in how the Ninth Circuit functions. As a Senator from Nevada, I represent people who are on both sides of this issue. I have heard arguments for, and against, splitting the Ninth Circuit but, having listened to the debate, have concluded that it is time for Congress to split the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit really has become too large to function as efficiently as it should. The population of the States in the Ninth Circuit is growing too fast for the circuit to manage its caseload. Cases working their way through the Ninth Circuit take far too long to come to resolution. The circuit is becoming increasingly dependent on visiting judges, who are not as familiar with circuit precedent, to manage its caseload. The reversal rate of cases heard by the Supreme Court which on appeal from the Ninth Circuit is much higher than the average of all Federal circuits. These problems require some form of action by Congress and, having studied the issue, simply adding more judges is not the solution.

Last year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the issue of splitting the Ninth Circuit. As several Federal judges who were witnesses testified, adding more judges, in a circuit so geographically large, is not going to adequately address the need for collegiality among judges.

Mr. President, my primary motivation is to ensure that my constituents, the people of Nevada, have equal access to justice. Equal access to justice requires not only fair, but also prompt, resolution of a case. From my perspective, the current backlog in cases and the fact that the resolution of appeals takes far longer in the Ninth Circuit than any other circuit demonstrates that Nevadans are not guaranteed the promise that their claims will be heard with the same timeliness as persons living in other circuits. The adage of ``justice delayed is justice denied'' is appropriate with respect to the Ninth Circuit delays.

I believe we should consider the cost that unreasonable delay causes to the parties in a case. The lawyers and the judges live in this system. To these people, delays are not only reasonable but they are expected. A delay to someone who is part of the legal community is just the way things are done. But that is not the case for litigants. Ask any litigant whose case is waiting for a hearing on appeal. They take being sued personally and would tell you that their lives are on hold. They may fear they will lose their business, or their job, or their livelihood. It really does not matter whether the case involves business litigation, an immigration appeal, or a criminal matter.

If you talk to the parties to a case, they will tell you stories of the economic, social, and psychological toll extended litigation has on them and their families. That is why I am concerned about delays in the process.

That is also why I believe that some groups have endorsed my bill. For example, the Western States Sheriff's Association, which includes Nevada, has endorsed splitting the Ninth Circuit. I believe that the Association understands that America's law enforcement agencies have been devoting scarce budget resources to monitoring and dealing with criminal appeals that would otherwise be better devoted to protecting America's families if only appeals cases were resolved sooner rather than later.

I believe that it is not only the duty of Congress but also our obligation to ensure that the Judicial branch is operating efficiently. That is why we are considering the current legislation, the court security bill, because we want to ensure that judicial branch operates efficiently. And we know that it cannot, if those who work in the system--our judges and our court officers--do not feel safe. That is also why my amendment is so important.

I do not believe that splitting the Ninth Circuit would infringe on the ``independence of the judiciary'' as some might suggest. The Constitution provides Congress with the power to ``constitute'' or establish ``tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court,'' and also gives Congress the power to ``ordain and establish'' the lower Federal courts. Acting in accordance with the Constitution, Congress has used its authority to establish the Federal appeals courts and the Federal district courts, as well as other Federal courts. Congress has the ability to create courts of special jurisdiction, such as military courts, bankruptcy courts, and tax courts, and to limit the appeals jurisdiction of all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. The Constitution clearly provides that the people, acting through their respective Congressional representatives, can enact legislation to split the Ninth Circuit. The prerogative of Congress to enact legislation to split the Ninth Circuit is consistent with the role of Congress established by the Constitution. The idea of splitting the Ninth Circuit is a proper action for Congress to take.

Finally, Mr. President, I would hope that Members of the Senate could agree that, regardless of where each of us may be on this issue, we could engage in an honest discussion and avoid attacking each other's motives. I have read with great interest the statements of people on the other side of this issue suggesting that split supporters, like myself, are only ``politically motivated'' or that supporters of a split are ``trying to punish'' the Ninth Circuit because of the perception of the circuit's ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am sure the people who do not favor a split have likewise had similar attacks directed at them. We should not condone that rhetoric or impugn each others motives. I do not believe that it is in the Senate's, or the Nation's, best interest to attack someone else's motives. I have met with people on both sides of this issue and respect their views.

Let me conclude by saying this. The saying is that justice delayed is justice denied. In the Ninth Circuit that is what happens ever single day. Nevadans experience justice delayed too often. We are putting more and more of a burden on our Federal courts by the actions of the Senate. We need to now take the responsibility to make sure our various circuits around the country are not even more overburdened simply because of population growth. That is what has happened, and will continue to happen, in the Ninth Circuit. We have added a judge here and there. But the overall size of the Ninth Circuit, even if you add more judges, would not take care of the problems we are now experiencing. Some have argued that adding more judges would fix the problem, but it still would not

allow the full Ninth Circuit to hear many of the most difficult, challenging cases. The judges of the ninth are not able to work together as a full circuit and collaborate on some of the most difficult, challenging judicial cases.

That is why it is better to split up this circuit, so that more thoughtful decisions can be made in the administration of justice.

With that, I will yield the floor and ask my colleagues to support this very important amendment.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to rule on the point of order.

Mr. President, I understand a modification of my amendment is at the desk. I call it up.

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

Mr. President, very simply, this amendment reduces spending for the Educational and Cultural Exchange Program fund in order to provide spending for implementation of the Adam Walsh Act. My amendment provides funding for the United States Attorneys to prosecute sexual predators who target children and also for the United States Marshals to track down the nearly 100,000 sex offenders in the United States who have failed to register as a sex offender as required by law.

The bill before the Senate is an emergency spending bill. I strongly believe that funding the critical programs contained in the Adam Walsh Act is an emergency: 100,000 predators on our streets who are unregistered as sex offenders. They need to be registered. So that parents know where they are so that they can protect their children. That is an emergency.

I know some people hold the sincere belief that the Educational and Cultural Exchange program is very worthwhile. I don't question their opinion, but I question whether funding it is truly an emergency. I want to give a few examples of the kind of projects that the Educational and Cultural Exchange program funds. Last year, according to the State Department Web site, this program funded the following: We sent a bluegrass band to China. We taught weaving and dyeing techniques with Uzbek women. We sent jazz musicians to Madagascar. We paid for breakdancers to tour Denmark, Argentina, Croatia, and Kiev. Those may be worthy cross-cultural activities to pursue, but I cannot stand here and suggest they are emergencies that are of greater need to fund than providing law enforcement with the resources need to protect our children, especially at a time of war.

Let's use emergency funding for real emergencies in this country. If you are a parent today and you have children out there, knowing where those sex offenders are so you can keep your children safe I would say does constitute an emergency. I recommend and urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I appreciate the Senator allowing me to speak. There is an amendment being negotiated and, hopefully, we will be able to have a vote on what I believe is a very important amendment.

In this emergency bill there are some things that some might consider an emergency, and there are others that I would not classify as an emergency. But there are things in the country that truly are an emergency. My amendment attempts to address one of the most pressing issues happening in our country today.

My amendment provides additional funding for the Adam Walsh Act that we passed last year. As each Senator knows, the Adam Walsh bill provides law enforcement with the tools to go after child predators. It also gives parents the tools they need to protect their own children. My amendment provides funding for the Adam Walsh bill. Simply, my amendment provides $12.5 million in funding for U.S. Marshals to track down the estimated 100,000 convicted sex offenders who have failed to register as a sex offender. It provides $12.5 million in funding for the U.S. Attorneys Offices to prosecute child pornographers and people who exploit children.

This amendment does not include any new spending. This amendment is offset by eliminating the $25 million in funding in this bill for the Department of State's Educational and Culturing Exchange Program. While that might be a worthy program, certainly I do not believe it compares to the priority of locking up sexual predators and protecting the children of the United States. Earlier this year, just less than 2 months ago, we provided over $445 million for this same exchange program.

There are many true emergencies, but this Congress is required to make difficult decisions. We were elected to make sure that we spend money on what is most important. For a parent, protecting their child from harm is one of their top priorities. It certainly is for myself and my wife. Protecting children from an online predator has to be absolutely one of our nation's top priorities. That is why I believe my amendment is necessary.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, we know there are about 100,000 unregistered sex offenders in the United States.

The dangers these predators present to our children are very serious. Last year, I chaired a subcommittee hearing at the Commerce Committee about this very issue. What we discovered--what the testimony revealed was shocking. The average sexual predator who targets females will molest, on average, 130 young girls over the predator's lifetime. Let me say that again, on average one predator will victimize 130 young girls.

If the predator targets males, the predator will molest 180 young boys. I know that these statics sound so unbelievable that they could not possible be true, but sadly they are. That is why the dangers these predators present to our children is very real.

Giving law enforcement the tools to track down unregistered sex offenders, to give prosecutors the tools to prosecute people who exploit these children is critical.

I have heard from law enforcement agencies in my home State, that the Adam Walsh bill is making a real difference in our neighborhoods and communities.

Our children are safer for it. We need to continue to do everything in our power to eradicate child predators in our communities or as parents we won't be able to have a moment of peace. Too many families and children have been victimized by these predators who leave wounds that do not heal. That is why we must commit the resources necessary to protect our children. That is why I believe that funding the Adam Walsh bill is so important. I urge my colleagues to adopt this important amendment.

Now, I am sure that cultural exchange is important, but can we compare cultural exchange programs to the importance of protecting the American children? Madam President, I think not. I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment unanimously.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my amendment would impose an income test on the wealthiest seniors to ensure that they pay a greater share of their Medicare prescription drug coverage.

A couple of years ago, we had a vote in the Senate that would income- relate--in other words, means test Medicare Part B, which pays for medical services, like doctors' services. Medicare Part D is the part that pays for prescription drugs.

Mr. President, we already means test Medicare Part B. In order to put the Medicare program on better financial footing, we should extend the existing Medicare Part B income test to the Medicare prescription drug program.

It makes no sense for Bill Gates's father to have his prescription drugs paid for by a schoolteacher or a firefighter or a police officer or any other middle-income American. This amendment says that a single senior, with an annual adjusted gross income over $80,000 and couples with annual adjusted incomes of over $160,000 a year would be responsible for a greater share of their Medicare Part D premium.

I have a chart that shows that the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries would not be impacted by this proposal. Almost 96 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would not be affected by my amendment. This means that only the wealthiest 4.3 percent of seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D will pay higher premiums in 2008. Wealthy seniors have the means. We should not be burdening our children and grandchildren with even further debt by subsidizing wealthy seniors. That is what this amendment essentially does. It says that wealthy seniors should pay more for the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

The other side of the aisle says that we should raise taxes on the wealthy. This isn't raising taxes. This is getting wealthy seniors to pay for a benefit they are receiving that they never paid for. In the past, AARP and others have said that we should not means test Medicare.

In this instance, means testing is fair. Remember, that the Medicare prescription drug benefit is a new benefit. Today's seniors did not pay into the Medicare program, through payroll taxes, with the promise of a prescription drug benefit. What this amendment says is that if you can afford to pay higher prices for the Medicare Part D premium, then you should. That is, in essence, what this amendment is about. It is about fairness. Let's treat middle-income taxpayers of today and the future in a fair way by saying wealthy seniors--such as Bill Gates' father, such as my father, such as seniors who are in the upper-income brackets--pay their fair share instead of dumping this liability on future generations of taxpayers and making them pay higher taxes because we want to subsidize seniors to the current extent.

The Medicare Part B program is already means tested. We should further means test the Medicare program by requiring Medicare beneficiaries who make over $80,000 a year as a single and $160,000 a year as a couple, responsible for a greater share of their Medicare prescription drug premium.

To show a little support, the Washington Post, which is not exactly a conservative newspaper--and usually isn't in my corner--wrote:

One worthy proposal, contained in the Bush budget, would

have imposed higher Medicare prescription premiums for

higher-income beneficiaries . . . Unfortunately an amendment

to that effect was defeated in the budget committee.

That was my amendment.

If Democrats are serious about dealing with health care

entitlement spending, isn't it time for them to demonstrate

that?

I believe it is time to demonstrate that.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, am I correct, there is 1 minute on each side?

Madam President, very simply, this amendment is the same as the means testing on Part B. Part D of Medicare seniors never paid for during their lifetime. This is a brand new entitlement, something they never paid for. We are asking the younger workers to pay basically for millionaires to be able to get prescription drugs. What my amendment says is we should means test those so wealthier seniors will have to pay more of their fair share for prescription drugs. That is very simply what this amendment does.

I think 59 Senators voted before to make sure Part B was means tested--once again, a benefit they never paid for. This amendment does the same thing for Medicare Part D. Let's not ask a schoolteacher or a firefighter to pay for millionaires to have prescription drugs. Let's do something fiscally responsible and call on the Finance Committee to enact this very important amendment to the prescription drug program.

First, I compliment Senator Conrad on his relationship with Senator Gregg. The cooperation they have displayed over the past several years should serve as an example to everyone in this body how the Senate can, and should, work. They battle fiercely, battle for their own ideas, but the collegiality they demonstrate and the respect they show one another is a good example for the rest of us in the Senate. One we should follow. It is really the way we should legislate around here. I offer them my compliments.

Amendment No. 476

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so that I may call up amendment No. 476.

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

Mr. President, to briefly describe the amendment, it is a defense firewall amendment. This is not a new idea. We have had defense firewalls in the past. They have worked with some success. There have been a few problems with them, but overall they worked with some success.

We drafted the defense firewall in this amendment in a little different way than previous firewalls. These changes, I believe, will actually result in the firewall having its intended effect. That is, to make sure that the defense money in the budget is actually spent on defense.

In past years, a defense firewall has, frankly, been necessary. The chairman of the Budget Committee can attest to the fact that, under Republican control, this budget enforcement tool should have been in place. I have been very critical of Republicans when we chose to underfund defense purposely to shift money to other programs. Over the last several years, we used a kind of sleight of hand and budget gimmicks, and then restored defense spending later on in emergency supplementals. In effect, this raises overall spending for the Government.

Instead of honest budgeting and trying to increase certain non- defense programs in the open, we hid our spending habits from the American people. I have always said, that if you want to increase non- defense spending, have an honest vote to do so rather than using a gimmick. Fund defense honestly rather than what we have been doing, which is dishonest budgeting. We have not had the transparency under which I believe this institution should operate.

When the Democrats were campaigning last year, they criticized us in a lot of ways for using budget gimmicks, and I think rightly so. It is their time to keep what they have campaigned on--honest budgeting and true transparency. That is what we need in this place.

I want to take a minute to demonstrate what I have talked about for the last several years. Unfortunately, given how the new Democrat majority has chosen to fund BRAC, this Congress is continuing the bad habits of Congresses past.

What this chart shows is, in 2002, we added $1.9 billion in new spending. We took away from defense, about $1.9 billion, and then added that amount back in a supplemental. And this happens because everybody knows that Congress is going to fund defense to add that spending back later. We don't want to vote to actually cut defense, so we shift the money in the regular appropriations process and put it back in during an emergency supplemental. But what happens is that the $1.9 billion in 2002 gets added into the baseline for the next year. Then the next year, we underfunded defense by $11.5 billion, we shifted the money to other programs, and then added back the defense spending during the supplemental. The effect of this is to add on to the previous year--all of that in fiscal year 2004.

You can see the green bar at the bottom is the combination of the previous 2 years; that is added into the baseline. Then you do this again. Robbing from defense to once again add to the nondefense part of the baseline. This continues each year all the way up, and then you see what happens until we get to 2006. The cumulative effect of this is shown on the next chart.

I know the chairman of the Budget Committee likes charts, so we wanted to make sure we would have some of our own today. The cumulative effect of doing this each year for 5 years is a total of $84 billion. We don't have the new numbers for 2007 yet, but it is about an extra $40 billion. So we are probably well over $125 billion for a 6-year total in new spending. That really is the problem.

People are not being honest. If they want to increase spending, do it honestly. What our defense firewall says is that if you want to adjust defense spending, it cannot be done during the appropriations process; it has to be done during the budget process so that we are being honest with the American people. Since we assume a defense number in this budget, this amendment puts a wall around that amount so that it cannot be taken during the appropriations process. That wall says we will not take any more money out of defense to put into the other appropriations bills. This is transparency. This is honesty in budgeting.

When Republicans were in the majority, the Democrats claimed that we were fiscally irresponsible. They promised that they were going to come to power and be fiscally responsible. This is an amendment that will give them the opportunity to do just that. It gives them the opportunity to reject one of the budget gimmicks that has been used to add new spending.

I call on my colleagues in the majority to join with me in putting transparency into the budget process so we can help restrain Federal spending. Why do I say that? It is because when the Defense bill comes up as part of the process, no one, especially during a time of war, is going to vote to cut defense. So knowing that the Defense bill has to pass, the other bills get funded first. Defense comes up and it is slightly underfunded, so they know they have to make that up during an emergency bill. The emergency bill comes to the floor, and everybody knows it is going to pass. That is how this whole budget gimmick ends up increasing overall spending.

If you support fiscal responsibility, if you don't want to add a burden of debt and higher taxes onto young people and future generations, vote for this amendment. This is a fiscally responsible way to budget and to bring transparency into the Senate. This is the kind of amendment we need going forward. Both parties should operate under this kind of honesty when it comes to budgeting. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, first of all, the Senator from North Dakota made the point that defense funding is secure. We do not in any way think we are going to underfund defense or the war funding. The point we were making about defense spending is that because everybody is going to make sure defense spending is secure, once the money for defense is put in there, money is taken out and put into other spending programs, then later in the year it is filled back in for defense.

Everybody knows we are going to fund the war. Everybody knows we are going to do the critical needs of the Department of Defense. What we are arguing is that other spending is going to be increased because of the budget gimmicks because there is no transparency.

What my amendment does is put transparency back into the process. That is why the Senator from New Hampshire and myself are arguing how critical this amendment is if we want to actually have some fiscal restraint, if we want to not just continue to blow up the deficits and pass this huge debt on to future generations.

Without transparency, without all the budget gimmicks, the numbers that my colleagues saw that I put up and the charts I put up for the last 5 years--let's put those charts back up. For the last 5 years, $84 billion total has been added in nondefense, other types of social spending programs. And it was done, in a way, with budget gimmicks, where people, kind of sleight of hand over here, looked as though they were being fiscally responsible, but they were not. They said they were operating within the budget caps that were set out, but because then the Defense spending was declared as emergency, that allowed people to get around the Defense caps.

What we are trying to do is to install some fiscal discipline. That is why we put a 60-vote, supermajority, point of order against this kind of activity. There is still flexibility. If people wanted to argue: let's take the money out, let's increase these accounts the way it has been done in the past, at least there is a supermajority required to do so.

I keep going back to last fall's election and before that, when the Democrats accused Republicans in the majority of being fiscally irresponsible. This is a chance to fulfill their campaign promise of being fiscally responsible. It is time to step up, put mechanisms in place that will put the discipline into this body to help hold down the spending that goes on in this place.

I will not argue that games won't be played. What we are going to do, though, is to make it more difficult to play the games. There will always be people who will try to get around whatever budget discipline we put in. The appropriators are famous for that. What we are trying to do here is to put in budget discipline, to put in a steeper wall to climb over to get around these sleight-of-hand budget tricks.

That is what this amendment is about, to say let's for once be fiscally responsible around this place. Let's think about the children and future generations as far as spending is concerned. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up to the full Senate for a vote.

Madam President, this amendment is very simply a Defense firewall amendment. We have had these in the past. The chairman of the Budget Committee will argue that they did not work very effectively in the past. I would disagree. It made it more difficult to take money out of Defense and to spend it on other programs.

Our amendment is a little different. It says if you are going to take money out of Defense for social spending programs, then you must do it during the budget process. It brings transparency into the budget process. In the last several years, folks have taken money out of the Defense Department during the appropriations process, put it in other social spending, and then during the emergency supplemental process they backfill the Defense Department. This has cost our country an extra $84 billion over the last 5 years. The problem is the money gets built into the baseline, which costs more money and more money and more money every year; last year alone it was $40 billion.

If you want to be fiscally responsible, you should vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about S.J. Res. 9 and the consequences of failure in Iraq.

I want to begin by reviewing just how Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida see themselves achieving ultimate victory in Iraq.

You don't have to be a serious student of history to realize that as of late, America has not exactly demonstrated the kind of collective will necessary to successfully complete military missions abroad.

As a nation, it seems easy, maybe too easy, to commit ourselves, through our military, into foreign lands in an attempt to accomplish what we believe is right, either to protect our vital national interests or to free a people from bondage, or in the case of Iraq to try to accomplish both.

Whatever the reason for committing ourselves to a noble cause overseas, America ventures into another country with only the best of intentions, and for a while the American people and her politicians overwhelmingly support our military and its mission.

Then, when we see that victory is not as easy or as immediate as we had initially hoped, we start down a road of self doubt. We convince ourselves that our military mission was probably not all that important in the first place. We somehow twist our values to accommodate an opinion that our military expedition is not worth the effort we need to expend in order to be successful. We recoil once the realization hits us that lives and treasure are the ``coin of the realm'' when it comes to using our military to ensure our continued national security. And for too long our adversaries have witnessed this reluctance, this lack of will, to finish the task at hand. In 1982, America deployed her military to separate warring factions in Lebanon. We went in with only the best of intentions. People were being killed and it was up to us to ``do something'' about it.

Then, on October 23, 1983, two truckbombs detonated in buildings housing American forces in downtown Beirut. Two hundered forty-one U.S. marines, sailors, and soldiers lost their lives that day. Six months later, America had had enough and we were out of Beirut.

The Lebanese civil war would rage on for another decade, and during that time countless Lebanese, Palestinians, and Israelis would suffer as a result of our abdication of responsibility.

As had always been the case before, our adversaries did not pursue us back to our shores to do us harm. But they did observe and they did note that the American public, led by her elected officials took the easy way out and departed before completing our intended mission.

In 1993, the United States once again sought to ``do something'' to end a humanitarian crisis that was taking place on the African continent. In a country with no functioning central government, warlords ruled their individual pieces of territory within Somalia as personal fiefdoms.

The Somali people were fodder as the warlords battled each other for control of land and resources. People were being killed. If they were not being killed by bullets, they were being starved to death.

Although the situation in Somalia did not directly affect our national security, American leaders at that time answered the call to ``do something'' to alleviate the human suffering Americans were witnessing nightly as part of their television news shows and reading in the daily editorial columns of most big city newspapers.

Our leaders once again answered the call by sending our young men and women in uniform to a foreign land to ``fix things.'' Soon, our military had its mission expanded beyond providing humanitarian assistance.

Part of this new mission involved capturing and/or killing the Somali warlords responsible for the pain inflicted on their fellow citizens. As part of this new mission, Army Rangers conducted an assault on Somali forces in what has come to be known as the ``Black Hawk Down'' incident.

Here, two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down and 19 of our Rangers killed. In the days following, film footage was broadcast over and over again on television that showed the lifeless bodies of our soldiers being desecrated as they were dragged through the streets.

This footage both shocked and humbled us. The support for our mission to do good things in Somalia quickly evaporated. The costs had become too great to bear. It was no longer that important to do the right thing and we subsequently withdrew our forces from the region.

Once again, our adversaries watched as the world's superpower retreated from the fight. Today, Somalia continues to flounder as a failed state and a haven for Islamic radicalism on the eastern coast of Africa.

In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that the Clinton administration's decision to withdraw from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al-Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.

``Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows,'' the terror chief recalled. ``America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.''

And those attacks promised by bin Laden did come.

On August 7, 1998, al-Qaida decided to test our mettle by simultaneously bombing our Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and in the process killed 257 people and wounded over 4,000.

Our tepid response once again gave Osama bin Laden comfort.

Since the Clinton administration had chosen to treat terrorist attacks as law enforcement matters, America sought to prosecute in our courts those responsible. Osama bin Laden was soon placed atop the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List.

Along with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, the Embassy bombing were two of the major anti-American terrorist attacks that preceded 9/11.

The United States responded to the Embassy attacks by freezing financial

assets of related parties and by firing some missiles into al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan.

The attack in Afghanistan destroyed some physical targets. However, the operation did not accomplish the destruction of bin Laden and his operatives and did not lead to any significant changes in the al-Qaida network and leadership.

Al-Qaida grew bolder, stronger, and more capable as we sat on our hands.

And so, here we are today, facing an embolden enemy bent on our destruction who has convinced himself that he possesses the will to break our spirit. He has done it before and he is convinced he can do it again this time.

The sad part about all this is that Osama bin Laden may very well be right this time.

Today we stand here debating a resolution of appeasement that directly affects our military strategy in Iraq and, by default, our overall national security for years to come.

This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations.

I agree with the President's assessment that this legislation before us would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism.

The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the U.S. Congress loses its will to fight. We precipitously withdraw our forces and leave the fledgling Iraqi government to fend for itself; Sunni and Shia factions rip the nation apart at a scale previously unimaginable. There is a mass exodus of refugees out of Iraq, and no mechanism in place to deal with them. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other states in the region feel the need to get involved.

This is a terrible scenario, but it is not the worst of scenarios. Bin Laden's nightmare vision also involves a chaotic Iraq with Sunni dominated areas like al-Anbar Province becoming a safe haven from which al-Qaida can launch attacks against the United States.

And we could see the Shiite dominated areas, with the help of Iran, and its own oil wealth, be used as a terrorist breeding ground, as well.

Make no mistake. The Iraqi situation is vastly different from Beirut, different from Somalia, and, different from the bombing of our African Embassies.

Iraq has consequences that will surely be felt here at home and around the world. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home.

I believe this.

We will be sorry and we will regret having once again left unfinished our national security obligations. But by then it will be too late for regrets.

We will find that as strong and powerful and compassionate as we think we are, we cannot ``unring'' the bell. The damage will have been done.

Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida followers are convinced that America is weak and decadent and they can succeed in grinding down our resolve and forcing us to retreat.

Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight.

He is a murderer. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.

Let us resolve today not to also make him a prognosticator of things to come.

I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided legislation. We cannot afford to leave this fight at this time. For the sake of America's future, we cannot afford to fail.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue of great importance to the Armenian community. In order to move forward, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is for this reason that I have long sought to bring proper recognition to the crimes perpetuated against the Armenian people.

April of this year will mark the 92nd anniversary of the attempted annihilation that occurred in the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923. Millions of Armenians of all ages were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation.

The great bulk of the Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were abducted and horribly abused.

There is one word that describes the horrific attempt to annihilate the Armenian people, and it is genocide. Ironically, while the United States has failed to make that recognition, Adolf Hitler, in defending his own plans to rid the world of Polish people, among others, asked, ``Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?''

The resolution I introduce today, with my distinguished colleague Senator Durbin, calls on President Bush to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States demonstrates significant understanding of the issues surrounding the Armenian Genocide. The resolution encourages the President to commemorate the Armenian Genocide by recognizing the persecution and extermination of over 1,500,000 Armenian citizens as genocide.

The resolution calls on the President to state that the slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire was genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian genocide. It is important that the United States once and for all reaffirms the incontestable facts of history and allows our representatives to speak out about the crimes perpetuated against the Armenian people from 1915-1923.

It is my hope that through recognition of these crimes our Nation and the entire world community will be able to prevent further instances of genocide, ameliorate relations between Turkey and Armenia, and increase awareness of issues such as ethnic cleansing and human rights around the globe.

As we fight to ensure freedom around the globe, we must ensure that our future reflects the lessons of the past. In this case the facts are incontestable. Yes, the Armenian people were victims of genocide. Genocide at any time, at any place, is wrong and needs to be confronted and remembered. Let us come together to remember that by recognizing that what happened to the Armenian people from 1915-1923 was genocide. We owe it to the victims and to the future of freedom.

Madam President, I speak today about my amendment to create the law enforcement assistance force. This amendment is a common-sense idea and I hope my colleagues would adopt this amendment.

My amendment proposes the creation of a law enforcement assistance force which is a system for retired law enforcement personnel to apply to DHS, and complete the necessary paperwork and training, before a disaster occurs. Then, when disaster happens, DHS would have a pool of qualified first responders who could be called into action. These volunteers would be detailed to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency to work side by side with law enforcement located in affected communities. The amendment also provides that DHS would reimburse volunteers for their costs.

The need for properly trained first responders was never greater than it was immediately after Hurricane Katrina. In the wake of this disaster, I toured the gulf region and saw the devastation firsthand. A situation caused by natural disaster was made worse by the way Federal, State and local government responded. I say this not to criticize anyone but to propose a way to improve how America will respond in the future.

In the aftermath of any disaster, there is an acute need for trained rescue and recovery personnel. These needs are often met by volunteers who, having seen their fellow Americans in need, travel across country to answer the call for help. In the aftermath of Katrina, there was no shortage of volunteers who answered this call. Their willingness to help is a testament to the American spirit. Unfortunately, these volunteers were not used in a way that was equal to their spirit or the needs of the people affected by this storm.

As the media reported, FEMA diverted many volunteer first responders to places outside of the disaster area. Some highly skilled emergency response volunteers were sent to Arkansas to prepare paperwork. Others were

diverted to Atlanta to hand out fliers and still others were forced to attend ``sensitivity training'' seminars. Meanwhile, in the hardest hit areas of the gulf region, people suffered. Many needed basic medical care and supplies. The resources of local first responders and government officials were strained. The local responders needed reinforcements, especially when lawlessness broke out. Responding to a disaster is always a difficult job. But like we advise at-risk communities to take steps to prepare for potential disasters, the Federal Government also has an obligation to prepare in advance as well.

My amendment creates a process to enable FEMA and DHS to put qualified first responders in place in the immediate aftermath of disaster. It will ensure a better Federal response by providing State and local communities with the reinforcements they need. I believe there is a willingness on the part of retired law enforcement to volunteer their experience and expertise in times of crisis. In fact, the idea for this amendment was given to me by a friend of mine, Tom Page, who is a retired Las Vegas Metro Police officer. I thank him for this suggestion and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

amendment no. 389

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

Mr. President, I rise today because a daunting task lies before us in Iraq. That task is the reconstruction of a war-torn and bruised nation. Let's put the battle over a troop surge or increased funding aside and join together in a strategy to one day leave Iraq, a free Iraq, in a place better than we found it. And not better by our standards, but better for the people and future of Iraq.

Last week, a group of airmen from Nellis Air Force Base in my hometown were recognized with Bronze Stars for their courageous efforts in Iraq. As part of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team they have done remarkable work saving lives. CAPT Brian Castner was awarded the Bronze Star after a 6-month tour--his third tour in Iraq. His wife, Jessica, said of his mission:

My grandparents fought in World War II and, because of

that, Japan is our friend. And we just hope and pray at night

that 30, 50 years from now that for our children and our

grandchildren that Iraq will be our friend, and if his

efforts today keeping people safe does that, it makes every

sleepless night worth it.

If we are going to succeed at making a future friend and ally out of Iraq, then we need a new direction forward. Our new military strategy must be paired with a new reconstruction strategy in order to cool off the vitriolic hatred and violence that has consumed Iraq, and this new direction must be based on realistic goals.

When we first liberated Iraq from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, we were disgusted by the ruler's palaces and extreme wealth in contrast with the deplorable conditions of those he ruled. We were anxious to give the Iraqi people all that they had lacked. While our intentions were good, our expectations were unrealistic and our performance failed to deliver.

We looked to build a self-sufficient democratic nation in the Middle East with an accompanying civil society, responsible and just court system, representative government, responsive police units, a respected, and a protected border. We wanted to create a model to which people of other states in the region could aspire.

In hindsight, we should not have imagined that building a democracy would be so simple. It never has been. We simply did not have the strategy and tactics properly prioritized, maybe building the roof before the foundation. It is no wonder why our efforts were unsuccessful. But it is not too late to regroup. A great deal depends on our new direction being successful.

Our policy needs to change from lofty aspirations to a focus on providing, as a minimum, the basic services that were available during the Saddam Hussein era. At the same time, we need to communicate that we are laying the groundwork for future opportunities that were unimaginable under that barbaric regime. We need to redirect our efforts to vital services such as water and waste water systems, irrigation canals, and a reliable electricity supply. Concentrating our resources on improving everything simultaneously is foolish and ends up being far less efficient. The laundry list of what we initially tried to accomplish in Iraq is what scholar Amitai Etzioni calls a ``scattergun approach.'' We tried to do too many things at once, and did none of them really well. Instead, Mr. Etzioni suggests, we need a ``triage'' approach. We need to make services such as water, sewers, and electricity a priority. We work on them until they are successfully completed, and then we turn to the next project. While the building of banks and schools are important, if Iraqi families can't get running water in their homes or more than a few hours of electricity a night, why should they trust us? The less tangible gifts of a free democratic system are meaningless to a mother caring for her sick child in the darkness.

While our priorities have been part of the problem, our attitude may have also been a source for our difficulties. A Marine reservist from Nevada, Jon Carpenter, who served two tours in Iraq and whose brother is there now, told me about the approach taken by those around him to the Iraqis. ``Sir, this is your country. What problems do you see that need to be addressed and what can I do to assist you in these problems,'' they would ask. ``I may have some monetary resources coming, some people with skill sets to help you, and my time and energy to make the solutions happen. Where would you like to begin?''

If it had been the policy of all our military leaders on the ground to give that kind of deference to the local Iraqis, we may have been able to build a greater deal of good will and success. And don't get me wrong, our men and women in uniform have made tremendous progress in Iraq. They have worked tirelessly and have been committed to the cause, but we need to understand the importance of successfully delivering the most basic services to the Iraqi people as part of their path to self sufficiency. It will also create a situation where there is no tolerance for insurgents or their efforts to destroy what belongs to the Iraqi people.

In order for the Iraqi Government to become self-sufficient, Iraq's potential

for producing oil also must be realized. Currently the Iraqis are producing roughly 2.1 million barrels of oil a day. This is down from the 2.5 million barrels of oil a day produced during the previous regime. We need a plan that will reliably deliver 3 million barrels a day. At $60 per barrel, the incremental 900,000 barrels per day generates nearly $20 billion per year. This would go a very long way toward funding many of the improvements that are mandatory to stabilize the situation in Iraq.

As report after report indicates, one of the challenges to building Iraq's oil revenues has been insurgent attacks against oil infrastructure. As Senator Clinton and I wrote in the Wall Street Journal, we believe a distribution of revenues to all Iraqis through an Iraq Oil Trust would mean they would have a greater incentive to keep the oil flowing, help the economy grow, reject the insurgency, inhibit corruption and commit to the future of their nation. An Iraq Oil Trust, modeled on the Alaskan Permanent Fund, would guarantee that every individual Iraqi would share in the country's oil wealth. Oil revenues would accrue to the national government and a significant percentage of oil revenues would be divided equally among ordinary Iraqis, giving every citizen a stake in the nation's recovery and political reconciliation and instilling a sense of hope for the promise of democratic values.

I know there are plans that distribute the oil revenues to the different provinces, but I firmly believe that each Iraqi citizen must receive a share--it means a path to opportunity for these people. With that share, an Iraqi citizen can make money, invest in a business, use it for collateral for a home, or build savings. With that share in an Iraq oil trust comes hope for the future.

There is still reason to hope for success in Iraq. Our new military strategy is showing progress on the ground, but we must continue to give our men and women in uniform the tools they need for the monumental task at hand. A focused plan for ``triage'' in the reconstruction of Iraq, coupled with a strong military strategy, will boost our credibility and secure Iraq for their future and for ours. If we don't succeed on the battleground and in the reconstruction efforts, we risk creating an enemy state that will be a safe haven for terrorists and a grave threat to generations of Americans.

Instead, let us work together to ensure that 50 years from now, our friendship with the people of Iraq will be thriving. We owe it to our brave men and women, like Captain Castner, to make that vision a reality.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to send an amendment to the desk, so it becomes pending. I already cleared it with both the ranking member and the chairman.

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

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, since 1915, an oil portrait of Abraham Lincoln has hong in the chambers of the Nevada Assembly. The painting of our 16th President serves as a reminder of Nevada's entrance to the Union during his remarkable administration and of the special place his leadership will always hold in our State's history.

I want to pay tribute today to that man who rose to the highest office in our country at one of the most turbulent times in our history. He is an example to all of a good, decent, honorable man, who contributed more to the freedom we cherish today than we may ever fully understand.

February 12 was the 198th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth in a log cabin in Kentucky. We all learned about ``Honest Abe'' in grade school and his role in guiding this Nation through the Civil War.

But at the very essence of Abraham Lincoln was a man of great conviction who showed incomparable humility, a tested sense of morality, and an ability to rise above personal pettiness. Learning about Abraham Lincoln's life is a humbling lesson in leadership.

He was self-educated and had none of the advantages of a formal education. He taught himself the law and never stopped learning along the way. Whether it was studying history, philosophy, or military strategy, what Lincoln lacked in classroom time, he made up for in focus and determination.

And while moral fiber can be taught, that doesn't mean it will have its desired effect. It is said that trials don't build character, they reveal it. Abraham Lincoln had so many trials. His tremendous character was revealed time and again. The stories are endless, but I want to share a few examples of what a giant of a man President Lincoln really was.

During his days practicing law, Lincoln would often ride the legal circuit, which meant that he traveled with a band of lawyers and judges across Illinois to try cases in every corner of the State. Lincoln was admired and loved by his colleagues for his skill as a lawyer, and his gift for telling stories was legendary. It was during this time that fellow lawyers noted Lincoln's heartfelt conviction that no man was better than he. One lawyer pointed out:

He arrogated to himself no superiority over anyone. . . .

This sense of equality would remain consistent throughout Lincoln's life--as a man and a public servant--and would extend to other character strengths he exhibited. Lincoln was humble--to an astonishing degree. In 1855, Lincoln withdrew his name for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Although he had the greater number of votes, it became apparent that, if either he or the other anti-slavery candidate did not succumb, the cause of slavery would be the true victor. Much to the dismay of his loyal supporters, Lincoln advised the floor manager to drop his name, handing Lyman Trumball the win. Lincoln showed no hard feelings and shook Trumball's hand at his victory party.

Six months later, Lincoln suffered another blow to his morale when he believed that he was part of an important patent test case. Unbeknownst to him, he was not part of the case, but he continued to prepare as if he were. When he approached the lawyers involved with the case, one of them, Edwin Stanton, drew the other aside and asked why he had brought the ``. . . long armed Ape here . . . he does not know any thing and can do you no

good.'' Stanton treated Lincoln poorly in the days that followed, but six years later, Lincoln asked Stanton to be his Secretary of War.

Lincoln's ability to put aside such losses--which for most people would be terrible ego blows--was inspiring. Not only did he move forward, but he wasn't blinded by hate or rage and he didn't seek revenge. Instead, he recognized the need to surround himself with the best people who would make the greatest contributions to the mission at hand.

Lincoln's decision on who would join his cabinet was the perfect example of what his assistant, John Nicolay, described as ``one of great courage and self-reliance.'' Lincoln did not fill these positions with friends and loyal supporters who would agree with him and thought as he did. According to Lincoln:

We needed the strongest men of the party in the Cabinet. We

needed to hold our own people together. I had looked the

party over and concluded that these were the very strongest

men. Then I had no right to deprive the country of their

services.

It took great strength of character to understand that--especially when three of those men were his rivals for the Republican nomination for the presidency. These men: William Seward, Salmon Chase, and Edward Bates, were stunned by their losses to Lincoln in the primary and each maintained that he was the best man for the post well after their losses. When Lincoln embraced them for the cabinet positions, they still looked down on him as the lesser choice for president. However, Lincoln was wonderfully gifted at transforming rivals to admirers.

Seward, who Lincoln named his Secretary of State, slowly came to recognize the President's strong leadership abilities. He called the President's nobility ``almost superhuman.'' Seward was not alone.

But not everyone grew gradually fond of the President, as many saw his promise and brilliance immediately. Nevada's first senator William Stewart, whose seat I occupy today, described Lincoln's greatness.

President Lincoln was the greatest man this hemisphere has

produced. Without schooling he wrote the best English;

without education in rhetoric or logic he was the most

conclusive reasoner; without the slightest pretension to

oratory he was the most persuasive speaker of his time. He

was the kindest, most benevolent and humane man of his

generation. Whoever may be second as a scholar, as a

statesman and as a friend of humanity, Lincoln must be first.

Lincoln also touched the hearts of the soldiers who served under him. After one of his many visits to the troops on the battlefield, one soldier wrote home that as the President passed them, his smile ``was a real reflection of his honest, kindly, heart; but deeper, under the surface of that marked and not all uncomely face, were the unmistakable signs of care and anxiety . . . In fact, his popularity in the army is and has been universal.''

Lincoln's honest, kindly heart--that the soldier referenced--was also apparent in his loyalty and willingness to take responsibility for his actions. Lincoln would not let a subordinate take the fall for a decision he had made. In 1862, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was the victim of an especially aggressive, brutal personal attack. He was accused of not providing all the backup troops to counter what turned out to be a battle of great loss to the Union. Lincoln took the unprecedented step of convening a Union meeting with all the government departments. The audience, gathered in front of the Capitol, was comparable in size to that of a crowd at an inauguration. He explained that, ``The Secretary of War is not to blame for not giving when he had none to give. I believe he is a brave and able man, and I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged on the Secretary of War.'' What a humbling story. This is what Harry Truman meant when he said, ``The buck stops here.''

Equal to his loyalty was Abraham Lincoln's courage. The Emancipation Proclamation was described by one supporter as ``. . . the greatest act of justice, statesmanship, and civilization, of the last four hundred years.'' The Executive Order, signed by President Lincoln, declared the freedom of all slaves in those areas of the rebellious Confederacy that had not already returned to Union control. By the summer of 1865, an estimated four million slaves had been freed. Hannah Johnson, the mother of a Northern Black soldier, wrote to President Lincoln about the Emancipation Proclamation, stating:

When you are dead and in Heaven, in a thousand years that

action of yours will make the Angels sing your praises.

No doubt there are angels still singing, just 144 years later.

Lincoln never considered himself a champion for the slave. His priority was upholding and defending the Union and the Constitution upon which it stood. However, it was his vision and steady leadership that ultimately brought down slavery in the United States. With this transformation also came the respect and admiration of black abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Douglass has been a frequent critic of the President's, trashing him publicly many times. However, the two agreed on the need to recruit and build black regiments to fight in the war. It was a controversial move, but Lincoln understood the impact that the soldiers would have on the rebellion. Douglass went to the White House to meet with Lincoln about some of the inequalities among black and white soldiers. Just as he had won over countless rivals in the past, Lincoln's ``humane spirit,'' as Douglass called it, won him over as well. The two formed a relationship, and Douglass came to greatly admire Abraham Lincoln.

I wanted to talk about Abraham Lincoln because there is a timeless lesson in his style of leadership and his moral fiber. Today, we face a politically divided government and country. However, the issues are not as dire as the Civil War that took the lives of what today would be five million people. The United States is not on the brink of extinction. But we have an opportunity to rise above the political games and the pettiness to make progress on some of the major issues facing our Nation. We should all strive to show some of the humility, moral conviction, courage, and honesty by which Abraham Lincoln lived his life. This Nation paid a grave price in the name of freedom under his watch. Not only did freedom survive but it flourished, and he led us to new and greater heights.

Abraham Lincoln lost his life in the name of that freedom. After being shot in the back of the head, Lincoln struggled for 9 hours between life and death. The Nation--north and south--mourned for this beloved man, but those most inconsolable were the men who had first been Lincoln's rivals and who had later become his closest friends and advisors. There is no greater praise than that of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton whose tribute from Lincoln's deathbed has proven true, ``Now he belongs to the ages.''

President Lincoln told an Ohio regiment in 1864:

It is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come that

we should perpetuate for our children's children this great

and free government, which we have enjoyed all our lives.

I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the legacy of one of our greatest Presidents by working together and challenging each other to lead as he did.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana be recognized next for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by myself for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, this afternoon, I rise to add my voice to the current debate on the President's announced plan to reinforce coalition forces in Iraq by sending additional American soldiers and marines to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province in an effort to bring stability to that volatile part of that country.

For some time now, Senators have been clamoring for President Bush to send additional troops to Iraq. They criticized him for trying to accomplish our goals in Iraq without committing sufficient resources to get the job done.

Look, the President has recognized that a change in strategy is absolutely necessary. Many have previously called for this same strategy. But it appears to this Senator that because it is the President's plan, some Senators are predisposed against it.

A simple review of newspaper and Sunday talk show transcripts reveals some Senators appear to have supported the surge before they were against the surge. Senator Kerry on NBC's ``Today'' program on June 29, 2005:

We don't have enough troops in Iraq. . . . There aren't

enough people on the ground. . . . The way you honor the

troops and the way you provide a policy to America is to do

everything possible to win.

Senator Durbin on December 21, 2006:

If we need initially some troops in Baghdad, for example,

to quiet the situation, make it more peaceful so that our

soldiers start coming home, then I would accept it.

Mr. President, that is exactly what General Petraeus has said, and Secretary Gates before the Armed Services Committee said the same thing. It is an initial surge to try to get Baghdad under control so we can begin bringing our troops home.

Senator Dodd on December 18, 2006, said:

I'd be willing to support some additional people if we

needed it in order to get the job done.

He further said:

Show me some demonstrable evidence that they are coming

together as a people--Shias and Sunnis--sitting down and

recognizing that they have an obligation to come together as

a people. Then I'd be willing to support some additional

people if we needed it in order to get the job done.

Senator Levin in January of 2007 said:

A surge would be worth considering. The American people are

skeptical about getting in deeper . . . But if it is truly

conditional upon the Iraqis actually meeting milestones and

if it's part of an overall program of troop reduction that

would begin in the next four to six months, it's something

that would be worth considering.

Once again, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, that is exactly what Secretary Gates said, that it is a temporary surge in order to try to bring the troops home.

Senator Biden on June 29, 2005, said:

There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real

counterinsurgency.

Senator Jack Reed, in a press conference on November 29, 2006, said:

If the military commanders in Iraq said, we need, for X

number of months, 20-plus, 25,000 troops, to do this mission,

I would have to listen to that proposal. I think I responded

to the question before: That if the military commanders in

Iraq said, we need, for X number of months, 20-plus, 25,000,

troops to do this mission, and with a reasonable certainty of

success, I would have to listen to that proposal, certainly.

Well, Mr. President, within the last 2 weeks, there have been additional developments that would seem to add weight to the argument that this temporary reinforcement of our troops currently in Iraq is not only warranted but necessary to the overall national purpose. Those developments are the unanimous confirmation by this Senate of General Petraeus, who is to become the new commander--he is the new commander of the Iraqi multinational force--also, the testimony of the Iraq Study Group cochairman, relative to the President's plan, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the public release of the National Intelligence Estimate report on the prospects for Iraq's stability.

During his confirmation hearing, General Petraeus, also the author of the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, stressed the fact that he could not succeed in providing needed security for the citizens of Baghdad and Al Anbar Province without the additional troops called for in the President's plan.

General Petraeus further testified at his hearing that it was his opinion that any resolution which stated the Senate did not support the strategy to be carried out by our men and women in uniform in Iraq would be harmful to their morale. Are we going to support General Petraeus or not? The one resolution before us, I believe, is not supporting General Petraeus and the troops.

Last week, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on America's interests in Iraq, at which the witnesses were the Iraq Study Group cochairman, former Secretary of State James Baker, and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Secretary Baker referenced the Iraq Study Group's report in articulating that group's position on additional troops to Iraq. He stated:

We could support a short-term redeployment or surge of

American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up

the training and equipping mission if the U.S. Commander in

Iraq determines such steps would be effective. The only two

conditions are short-term and commander in Iraq determines it

would be effective. Both of those conditions have been met.

Mr. Hamilton made it clear his belief that the President's plan ought to be given a chance. He said:

We did not, in the Iraq Study Group report, come to the

conclusion that it was hopeless and, therefore, we should

just pull out immediately.

The much anticipated and just released National Intelligence Estimate report entitled ``Prospects for Iraq's

Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead'' was quite candid in its assessment that if coalition forces are withdrawn within the next 12 to 18 months, we will see significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq.

Mr. President, we need to accept the fact that we are engaged in a struggle of biblical proportions. In true American fashion, though, we are doing the right thing. We are attempting to free a people from a life of tyranny and violence. We are also in a struggle against the forces of evil who are bent on our destruction. Do we pack up and leave, even though every voice of reason tells us that Iraq would implode into a terrorist state used by al-Qaida as a launching pad against the infidels, reminiscent of Afghanistan under the Taliban? And those infidels, they think, are us.

As Senator McCain has reminded us time and again, Iraq is not Vietnam. When we left South Vietnam, the Viet Cong did not pursue us back to our shores. Al-Qaida is not the Viet Cong. Al-Qaida has sworn to destroy us and is committed to bringing their brand of terror to America.

President Bush never said the struggle for freedom in Iraq would be easy. But since the President is the one who said that, maybe it doesn't ring quite as true to some. Maybe by quoting another who spoke passionately about similar struggles for freedom, the point could be made more clearly. Back in 1857, Frederick Douglass spoke about the struggle he knew for freedom. He said:

The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows

that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been

born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is

no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet

deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing

up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning.

They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many

waters.

We are introducing freedom to a country and a region that has no history of such freedoms. We cannot expect to spread freedom and democracy to this region simply by wishing it so.

We currently have soldiers and marines in harm's way. We have a plan before us that will aid their mission. That mission is to achieve success and leave behind a stable and democratic Iraq. Yet there are those among us who want to cut and run. There are some among us who simply want to cut and walk. And then there are others who want to have it both ways. They want to express their opposition to the idea of sending additional troops to Iraq without having to do anything that might actually translate their opposition to a reality on the ground.

I belong to another group of thinkers. I belong to a group who believes General Petraeus's plan deserves a chance. I believe the temporary surge in the number of soldiers and marines in Baghdad and Al Anbar is our best chance at getting this right. None of us knows for sure whether it will work. There are always uncertainties in war. Let us all pray, for all our sakes, that this new way works.

Last week, I stood here and spoke about what I thought needed to be done in Iraq. I acknowledged that mistakes have been made in this war and that I did not believe we should be playing politics while our soldiers and marines are deployed and fighting against an enemy bent on destroying our country and our way of life. I called on my fellow Senators then to set party differences aside and focus on winning this war. I am here again this afternoon making that same plea.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss the Iraqi situation. Not the shootings and explosions we see in the streets of Baghdad and in al Anbar Province, but the struggle were currently engaged in right here in the Senate.

This latter battle is arguably more important to our long-term national security than any other issue we face today.

While everyone remembers the tragedy of 9/11, the pain and anguish experienced by Americans that day appears to have faded over time for an ever increasing number of our citizens.

For me, it remains as vivid and as gut wrenching today as it was that September morning more than 5 years ago.

It seems too easy these days to point fingers of blame at one another for our current situation in Iraq.

I could stand here today and recite quote after quote from Members on both sides of the aisle who were certain that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Hussein and his Baathist regime had ruled Iraq as a personal fiefdom for more than 30 years.

There is no arguing that Hussein was personally responsible for the brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, invaded two of his neighbors, supported worldwide terrorism, and violated 17 separate United Nations resolutions aimed at curtailing his WMD programs.

Seventy-seven Senators voted to give President Bush the authority to act.

With the clear authority from Congress to undertake military operations against Saddam Hussein, President Bush tried long and hard to seek a peaceful resolution. Saddam Hussein could not be reasoned with.

Following 9/11 and in an age of nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, we could no longer afford to sit by and wait on those wanting to do us harm to land the first punch.

We could not wait until we were attacked before acting. Calls for the President to act in order to protect America were loud and clear. And the President did act.

In doing so, Saddam Hussein's regime was eliminated and some 28 million Iraqis were freed from a living hell on Earth.

Watching the Iraqis struggle since then to establish their own democracy has not been a pretty sight.

With the luxury of hindsight, it's no secret that serious mistakes were made; too few troops; de-baathification of the Iraqi government and; failure of Federal Departments other than Defense to be fully engaged in this effort, to name a few.

We need to face the fact that we are in Iraq. We need to ask ourselves what do we do now.

Do we pack up and leave, even though every voice of reason tells us that Iraq would implode into a terrorist state used by al-Qaida as a launching pad against the ``infidels''; reminiscent of Afghanistan under the Taliban?

As Senator McCain has reminded us time and again, Iraq is not Vietnam. When we left South Vietnam, the Viet Cong did not pursue us back to our shores. . .

Al-Qaida is not the Viet Cong. Al-Qaida has sworn to destroy us and is committed to bringing their brand of terror to America.

This fact was evidenced recently during testimony by Lieutenant General Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

He testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al-Qaida 6 months ago revealed al-Qaida was planning terrorist operations in the U.S. Anyone willing to go to Iraq to fight Americans is probably willing to travel to America.

Do we pass meaningless resolutions that mandate unconstitutional caps on the number of troops deployed to Iraq?

I am not a military strategist, so I rely on the opinion of experts to educate me.

General Petraeus, the new commander of the Iraqi Multi-National Coalition and author of the Army's new Counter Insurgency Manual, told me that he could not succeed in providing security for the citizens of Baghdad and al Anbar Province without the additional troops called for in the President's plan.

Do we allow the President the ability to adjust those troop numbers in an effort to bring security to Baghdad and al Anbar Province?

From what I see, the President has the only plan on the table that doesn't ensure defeat. It may not be a perfect plan, and it may need to be adjusted in the near term, but it is certainly a change from what we've been doing so far.

One particular area that I believe needs improvement is our reconstruction effort.

According to the Congressional Research Service the United States has spent over $35.6 billion on reconstruction efforts.

We have to stop squandering our resources on reconstruction projects in Iraq that fail to deliver basic security and critical infrastructure.

A recent article in the Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding talked of the need to abandon a scattergun approach to reconstruction which focuses on winning hearts and minds and results in many nonessential projects being started but not completed.

I believe that we need to have what the author called a triage approach to reconstruction. The military calls it SWEAT: sewage, water, electricity and trash.

Let's focus on getting these essential services operating at the level they were before we invaded Iraq. This approach will undoubtedly make our military effort easier.

Our efforts to improve fundamental services up to this point have not received the focus and attention they deserve.

We have fallen short in the area of electricity production. Before we invaded Iraq, electric power was 95,600 megawatt hours; now, it is close to 90,000 megawatt hours. The goal was originally 120,000 megawatt hours.

In Baghdad, Iraqis receive about three fewer hours of electricity than before the war. Outside of Baghdad they do receive more, but we know most of the problems are in Baghdad. CRS notes that of 425 projects planned in the electricity sector, only 300 will be completed.

We have done somewhat better in assistance with water and sanitation.

We have provided clean water to 4.6 million more people and sanitation to 5.1 million more than before the war. But besides water, sanitation, and

electricity we know that Iraq needs a functioning oil sector.

Revenues from oil are necessary to fund government services, including security and maintain infrastructure. According to CRS, oil and gas production has remained stagnant and below pre-war levels for some time.

The pre-war level of oil production was 2.5 million barrels per day; it currently stands at 2.0 million barrels per day.

That is far below the 3.0 million barrels per day we were told Iraq was expected to reach by end of 2004. According to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, besides the destruction caused by the insurgents, poor infrastructure, corruption, and difficulty maintaining and operating U.S.-funded projects are challenges faced by the industry.

We are at a pivotal point in this Nation's history.

We face an enemy unlike anything ever witnessed before. We cannot wash our hands of the responsibility incumbent upon us as the leader of the free world.

It is time to join together, forgetting whether we are Republicans, whether we are Democrats, remembering we are Americans. It is time to come together behind our men and women in uniform, figure out what the best strategies are, and move forward together. It used to be said that partisanship stopped at our shore's edge. We need to go back to that spirit of being Americans. We cannot afford to fail in this effort.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are debating about whether to raise the Federal minimum wage in our country. I think that people on both sides of the aisle have agreed that it is time to raise the minimum wage in this country. But health care is an important issue, and ensuring that health care is more affordable, available, and accessible affects a lot more people in the United States than does the minimum wage. So at the same time we are helping some in our society, shouldn't we be looking at ways to help many more Americans obtain health care that is accessible, affordable, and available?

Our health care system does not work to keep costs down and quality up because the people who actually receive health care services are not responsible for paying for the services. The vast majority of people receive health care through their employer and have low-deductible policies. This provides no incentive to shop for better prices or high quality of care. If there was such an incentive, most people would shop for better prices and better quality. However, many people are covered by a health insurance plan where they are told where to go and which doctor to see. These individuals do not shop for quality or for price. Market forces can improve both the quality of medicine and the cost of medicine in the United States. Health savings accounts are an example of one instrument that can bring the idea of market forces into the health care field.

I can use several examples to illustrate how insurance can provide the wrong incentives for people, ultimately driving up costs and utilization. Try to imagine if your homeowners policy was similar to what our health care policies are today. In other words, try to imagine if your homeowners insurance covered items beyond the structure of your home if it was damaged and destroyed. For example, what if your homeowners policy covered painting the trim on your house or doing the yard maintenance. If that were the case, what would happen? Well, all of us would paint the trim on our houses a lot more often. And, all of us would probably have landscapers instead of doing the yard work ourselves. As a result, the cost of all of our homeowners insurance would skyrocket.

We have seen the cost of health insurance skyrocket for the last several decades. As the cost of health care increases every year, faster than inflation, more and more Americans are becoming uninsured. So, in order to try to drive down the cost of health insurance, health savings accounts were created. These accounts allow individuals with a high deductible health insurance plan to set aside money, tax-free, up to a set limit, to use for routine medical expenses. Health savings accounts allow individuals to shop for quality and for price.

With the health care system we have today, employers, who pay most of the costs, indicated that something had to be done about the high cost of health care. As a result, health maintenance organizations were created. HMOs were supposed to help manage care, but became more about managing costs. HMOs are not viewed positively by most of the American people. Individuals who are enrolled in HMOs often don't have a lot of choice when it comes to picking a doctor. These individuals also do not get to spend a lot of time with their doctor because their doctors are paid on what is called a capitated rate. This means that doctors are paid a certain amount of dollars per patient.

The more patients these doctors can move through their offices, the better off they do. As a result, the doctor-patient relationship has been hurt.

Health savings accounts allow you to walk into the doctor's office with your own money, so you will want your doctor to spend appropriate time with you. Health savings accounts do something else fairly wonderful. Since 30 to 35 percent of our health care costs today are spent in the bureaucracy of paying the bills, every single doctor's office has to hire people to collect the bills. With a health savings account, you are paying for your care at the time of your visit. As a result, you are not spending all of your money in an HMO, where there are layers of administration when it comes to billing. Health savings accounts go a long way toward eliminating a lot of the bill collecting that is conducted, and the money that is saved can go into providing better quality of health care in the United States.

My amendment is simple. It would make health savings accounts more attractive. It would make it easier for people to get health care coverage by allowing people to use their pre-tax Health Savings Account dollars to pay for health premiums. I believe my amendment will encourage more people to adopt health savings accounts.

Now that Federal employees are eligible for health savings accounts, my family and I signed up for our own health savings accounts. We actually had some health care issues with our children this last month. So my wife has been spending a lot of time talking with doctors. I told her to negotiate for prices and talk about quality and all of the various things that shoppers do in the marketplace. When market forces are brought in--whether it is with regard to cars, airplanes, or computers--costs not only go down, but quality goes up.

I have introduced this amendment today to urge more health savings accounts, so there are more market forces brought into our current health care system. My amendment will make health care more affordable and more accessible. It may also reduce the number of uninsured.

If we can bring the cost of health care down, more people will be able to afford health insurance. A lot of healthy young people say: Health insurance is expensive. I can use that money to do other things. I am probably not going to get sick.

If we can bring down the cost of health care, a lot of the young people who are currently choosing not to enroll in a health plan can be brought into the health insurance market. What does this mean for the rest of us? It means that risk will be spread out among healthier people, which brings the cost of health insurance down for everyone else in the system. Health insurance is all about spreading out risk. What does that do? It makes health insurance even more affordable. It brings in more people who are healthier and younger into the health insurance market.

Of those 40-plus million people who are identified as not having health insurance coverage today, a lot of them are young, healthy people. The more of these people we can get into the health care system, the more affordable health care is going to be for everyone else. It can have a magical spiraling effect that can make health care more accessible, more affordable, and more available to the citizens of the United States.

Mr. President, this amendment is the right thing to do for America. If Members care about getting better quality health care to more people in the United States, vote for my amendment to expand health savings accounts today.

How much time remains on both sides?

Just on my side?

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I move to waive all points of order that lie against the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.