Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to thank Chris Timmerman, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota this summer.

Chris is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD, and is currently a rising junior at Emory University where he is studying philosophy. He is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to give my thanks to Chris and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to also thank Aimee Brewster, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota this summer.

Aimee is a graduate of St. Thomas More High School in Rapid City, SD, and is currently a rising sophomore at the University of Notre Dame where she is studying political science and French. She is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to give my thanks to Aimee and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Yes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today about one of the great issues that faces us in this era, the war on terror. I rise to speak in support of the efforts being undertaken by our soldiers in Iraq. I consider my place on the Armed Services Committee to be an honor and a privilege. American soldiers are deployed the world over, and it is my duty to serve and to support them.

Today, our country is at war against an ideology of hate and oppression that has turned a peaceful religion into a platform for war. Our soldiers have faced such adversities throughout our history and defeated them. That is why yesterday I voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to protect the flag, which represents what our soldiers have always fought for.

The fight to combat Islamic fascism has not ended. Our soldiers, alongside Iraqi security forces, are fighting against the enemies of a free Iraq--enemies like Zarqawi, who made war on Americans and Iraqis alike. Zarqawi butchered innocent Iraqis in the streets with the hopes that he could intimidate them into submission or spark a civil war where his ideology of hatred could live. Zarqawi was wrong, and now he is dead.

Further, today we have reports that Iraqi security forces arrested a key al-Qaida figure who was involved in the destruction of the golden al-Askariya Mosque. Moreover, the Iraqis have not abandoned hope and neither should we. To the contrary, Iraqi and American forces are working together to bring a fledgling democracy into maturity. Iraqis are risking their lives so that their future generations can enjoy the freedoms of liberty.

While the Iraqis work toward unity, the U.S. Congress seems to be heading toward disunity. I am concerned over the increasingly visceral, unobjective, and unconstructive rhetoric launched by some on the other side regarding the global war on terrorism. I tried to remain silent on this matter waiting for the Democratic leadership to offer a constructive plan or enter into a constructive dialog. Unfortunately, neither of these things has happened.

To date, the Democratic plan for dealing with Iraq and the war on terror consists of simply quitting as soon as possible and launching a campaign of personal and negative attacks on the President and his administration. I suppose as we enter the beginning of an election year, the rhetoric will only get worse, and the issue will become more polarized.

The unfortunate victims of this Democratic charade are not the American people but the American soldier. Day after day, our soldiers see and hear people in this Chamber hammering away at the point that we are losing the war in Iraq, that Iraq is a lost cause or that this is a winless war, while all the time hiding behind the inconsistent mantra of opposing the war but supporting the soldiers. After visiting soldiers in both Iraq and Walter Reed Hospital, I am confident that for American soldiers there is no unwinnable war.

That is why I voted against Democratic amendments calling for troop withdrawals or artificial timelines. I believe the troops in Iraq are doing the work we have asked them to do, and that if we focus right now on artificial timelines, we will be doing them a grave disservice. I believe the calls that have come out of here are wrong for a couple of reasons.

First of all, they violate the spirit of the separation of powers doctrine that interferes with the President's ability to act as Commander in Chief.

Second, I think they turn what should be battlefield decisions into decisions made by politicians. Our commanders should make troop need decisions based on conditions on the ground.

The ``long war,'' as referenced by President Bush and also by Osama bin Laden, is not a war for Iraq, it is a war for hope, compassion, kindness, and a restoration of freedom to people the world over.

Now is not the time to send a message to Islamic fascists that they have won and we are pulling out because America has lost its resolve.

It is important to spur the Iraqis on, but we cannot force them to try and establish a working democracy by threatening to leave.

Since March of 2003, when American troops entered Iraq, there has been a great deal of advancement. While some on the other side take every opportunity to point out flaws and failures, I would like to point out that in January of 2005, 8 million Iraqis voted for a Transnational National Assembly, and in August Iraqi assemblymen presented a Constitution to their countrymen. In October, 80 percent of the people voted to ratify that new Constitution, taking their first steps to create a permanent government.

The people of Iraq have not undertaken this path to freedom without danger. They risk their lives standing in lines at voting booths and recruiting stations. Iraqis do these things because they know that they are taking the necessary steps which will govern their future.

While there have been positive advancements regarding the Government, the private sector has also seen improvements as well. There is much work to be done here. I will not stand before the Senate and state otherwise. However, the road to progress in Iraq is paved with growth. Oil production has increased from 1.5 million barrels per day to 2.25 million barrels per day. Electricity is also growing. U.S.-funded programs have added 2,700 megawatts to the national grid. It is clear that we need to inspire more Iraqi involvement, but that is not a farflung goal.

Since April 2003, 30,000 new businesses have started in Iraq, and their stock market is trading over $100 million per day.

I am very proud of what American soldiers have done in Iraq, and I believe more needs to be done. Every day we help Iraq move to a permanent government is another day we help Iraq become stable and no longer in need of America's servicemen. I will not abandon the idea that a free Iraq can be achieved or allow my actions to be governed by opinion polls or popularity contests.

It is not just Iraq that we are talking about, it is about the global war on terror and American security. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, Iraq has become the front line in the war on terror, and those terrorists who are pinned down in Iraq are not planning and launching attacks against the United States.

In fighting and winning the war on terror, ``eternal vigilance'' is the operative phrase. Thomas Jefferson said: ``The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.''

Irrespective of how or under what circumstances we got there, we must now complete the mission. We must win. Failure means relegating future generations to a world of terror and fear where thugs and rogues rule and where freedom, as we know it, becomes a thing of the past.

The global war on terror is about not only bringing stability and freedom and democracy to that region of the world, it is also about ensuring that Americans can live in peace and security in the future. Every single day that our brave and courageous men and women are taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, it means we are not fighting them on American soil.

So I rise today again to congratulate and thank those brave men and women who are carrying freedom's torch in Iraq and doing the heavy lifting that is necessary to keep this country safe and secure for the future.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the retirement of Peg Sagen. Peg has spent the last 11 years as editor of the Rapid City Journal, the largest newspaper in western South Dakota. On behalf of the Rapid City community and the State of South Dakota, I take this opportunity to thank Peg for her service and her commitment to quality journalism.

Peg began her career in the newspaper industry over 30 years ago. She has been dedicated to providing her readers with timely and accurate news. Peg has used her talent to assure that the citizens in the Rapid City and surrounding communities received the news in a fair and unbiased manner. In addition, she is known throughout the Rapid City area as a philanthropist. We are all grateful for her service to the newspaper industry and to the community.

It gives me great pleasure to commemorate the retirement of Peg Sagen and to wish her the best in the years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today as well to voice my strong support for a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of the American flag.

Some of the opponents have spoken today about how important it is that we not use this opportunity to amend the Constitution. The Senator from Illinois referred to the constitutional language, the constitutional sacred language, and question how we could alter what Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers wrote.

I simply point out that in the last 20 years, our colleagues on the other side have on over 100 occasions introduced constitutional amendments. In fact, there was one by the Senator from Illinois a few years back that would abolish the electoral college.

So the question isn't whether we amend the Constitution for this purpose. It seems to me at least the question that has been raised about the Constitution comes down to one's preference for which amendments are in order and which are not.

I have to say that I think an amendment to protect the American flag is in order, not just because it shares a majority and a strong bipartisan support in the Senate but because many of the people who were just alluded to by the Senator from Virginia who have fought and died on behalf of that flag want to see this flag honored.

Look at the veterans organizations in this country--the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Veterans organizations are very much in favor of this amendment. In fact, it has been one of their top priorities. The American Legion for some time now has been trying to get an amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to enact laws that would protect the American flag.

As a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I heard from many veterans on this issue who understandably feel strongly about this flag and rightly view desecration of the flag as an afront.

Many of our veterans have stood in harm's way around the world to protect everything our flag represents. That is why it is a unifying symbol that deserves to be protected from desecration.

The proposed amendment is simple. It says:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical

desecration of the flag of the United States.

It does not amend the first amendment. It simply authorizes Congress to pass a law to protect the flag from desecration.

This amendment, as I said earlier, has overwhelming bipartisan support. Members on both sides of the aisle feel strongly that this flag should be protected.

Our flag is intertwined with some of the most memorable scene's from our Nation's history. It was raised at Mt. Suribachi during the battle for Iwo Jima, and draped over the side of the stricken Pentagon on September 11. It is what Olympic gold medalists are honored with. It brings comfort to the wife of a fallen soldier. Young schoolchildren pledge their allegiance to our flag. Above all, it symbolizes the freedoms we hold dear, and I believe it should be protected from falling victim when those freedoms are exploited.

Since the birth of our Nation, American soldiers have fought for the ideals our flag represents and look to it for direction and promise on bloody battlefields. The effort we are making here is not something of small consequence. It is an opportunity to debate an issue of critical importance to the American people and to allow the voice of the people to be heard on this critical issue.

I am not a lawyer and most Americans are not lawyers, yet the vast majority of Americans know instinctively that the American flag is something that needs to be protected from desecration. However, right now five unelected lawyers on the Court have decided that desecration of the flag deserves the protection of the first amendment. Five unelected Justices on the Supreme Court decided that Federal and State laws prohibiting flag desecration were unconstitutional. Many of these statutes had stood for generations before these Justices determined that these statutes were unconstitutional.

In fact, four Justices on the Supreme Court completely disagreed with the majority opinion in the flag-burning cases. In fact, Justice Stevens, perhaps one of the most liberal Justices on the Court, wrote a dissenting opinion saying that desecrating the flag is offensive conduct, not speech that deserves protection.

Our Constitution does not belong to the courts. It belongs to the people. And when the courts get it wrong, it is appropriate the people have an opportunity to correct it. In this case, I believe the opinion of the four Justices ought to be the majority opinion, as do the vast majority of the American people. If two-thirds of the Senate, two- thirds of the House of Representatives,

and three-fourths of the State legislatures also believe it should be the majority opinion, then that is a constitutional basis for making it a majority opinion.

The notion that flag desecration is a nonexistent problem is also not factual. As Senator Hatch has noted earlier, there have been several incidents of flag desecration just in the last year, and these are the occasions that were published in the media. They are the ones that we know about.

The House of Representatives has passed this amendment with the required two-thirds majority in each of the past five Congresses, but it has always been bottled up here in the Senate. The Senate last voted on this amendment in the year 2000 when it drew 63 votes. That is a lot of votes, but it is still 4 votes short of the 67 that are needed to pass. This time around, it appears that we are very close to passing this amendment.

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues who are listening to this debate will ultimately come down in favor of supporting what is a very simple, straightforward approach which simply says that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. It puts the power in the hands of the Congress--the elected representatives of the people of this country--and the people who ultimately will have the opportunity in the 38 States if this thing is approved here today, with the 67 votes that are necessary to vote on its passage.

So I stand proudly today in support of those veteran organizations who have spoken loudly on this issue--those who have sacrificed and who believe that the American flag is not just ink and cloth, but is a symbol of our freedom, a symbol of our democracy, and it is something that the majority of Americans and those who have served this country and fought to protect it deserve to have protected.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the Chambliss amendment will remove the prohibition on multiyear contract authority for the purchase of the F- 22A aircraft and in so doing give the DOD the flexibility it needs to purchase 60 F-22A aircraft over a 3-year period in installments of 20.

The multiyear contract will save the Government, as has been noted by Senator Isakson, over $200 million over the 3-year period and allow for a rational and steady flow of F-22s.

Mr. President, I also want to note one thing about the GAO study that has been referenced here today and the funding for the F-22A. The statement is made in the GAO study that the funding for the F-22 could be better spent on fighting the war on terror. The problem with that is it assumes that America faces threats from only irregular forces or subnational groups.

North Korea's threat to launch a multistage missile that can hit Hawaii, Iranian nuclear ambitions, and the expansion and modernization of the Chinese military are patent examples of substantial threats from independent nation states.

The air superiority gap America once enjoyed has dramatically closed. The F-15, F-16, or F-18 are no longer without competition on the world stage. Since the late 1970s, for example, the Russian Air Force has been continually improving its air fleet. Planes like the MiG-29, Su- 27, Su-35, and the addition of the Su-37 super-flanker have evened the playing field. The Chinese are now making their own version of the Su- 27 under the designation J-11. Both Russia and China are eyeing foreign buyers for these formidable aircraft.

Further technology and modern air defenses have grown significantly, and Legacy aircraft are vulnerable to increased anti-aircraft threats and technology.

Congressional inaction on this matter is creating a situation where American pilots will be flying aging Legacy aircraft against comparable enemy aircraft.

DOD states that the F-22As as fifth-generation fighters is needed to neutralize advanced air defenses, thus opening the door for follow-on joint forces to include nonstealthy Legacy aircraft and long-range strike capabilities.

We need the F-22. The QDR supports this notion. The QDR focuses on the ability to quickly and effectively penetrate enemy airspace and exploit stealth and electronic warfare capabilities. The F-22A excels at all these missions and helps America take a step ahead against emerging technologies and threats we face.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Chambliss amendment and allow the Air Force to move forward in a way that will enable us to save the taxpayers money and to meet the needs that we face for this country as we go forward.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today I honor LTC Stephen M. Parke. This month Lieutenant Colonel Parke retired from the U.S. Army after nearly 21 years of faithful service to his country.

Lieutenant Colonel Parke is a native of Rapid City, SD. He is also a graduate of the University of South Dakota and the South Dakota School of Law. Lieutenant Colonel Parke then went on to be on the staff of the Judge Advocate. His service has taken him all over the United States as well as to the far corners of the world to places such as Alaska, Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, Korea, and Cuba.

Throughout his years of service, Lieutenant Colonel Parke has advanced through the ranks, from captain to major and finally to lieutenant colonel. Lieutenant Colonel Parke's exemplary service has earned him several major awards and decorations. These include the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters.

It is with great honor that I remember and honor the service provided by LTC Stephen M. Parke to his country. On behalf of a grateful State and a grateful Nation, I wish Lieutenant Colonel Parke all the best in his retirement.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to recognize Sioux Falls, SD. The city of Sioux Falls will celebrate the 150th anniversary of its founding this year.

Located in Minnehaha County, Sioux Falls was founded on the banks of the Big Sioux River. The city of Sioux Falls began after speculators from the Western Town Company claimed the town site in 1856. Sioux Falls has been a successful thriving community for the past 150 years, and I am confident it will continue to grow and prosper.

I offer my congratulations to Sioux Falls on their anniversary, and I wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Wentworth, SD. The town of Wentworth will celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding this year.

Located in Lake County, Wentworth was founded in 1881 as an agricultural town. Wentworth has been a successful and thriving community for the past 125 years, and I am confident that it will continue to serve as an example of South Dakota values and traditions in the future.

I offer my congratulations to Wentworth on their anniversary, and I wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 80th birthday of Mrs. Ruth Ziolkowski.

Ruth Ziolkowski immigrated to South Dakota in 1947 to help Korczak Ziolkowski begin work on the Crazy Horse Memorial sculpture. The two were married in 1950. Since then, Crazy Horse Memorial has made monumental progress with the completion of Crazy Horses' face in 1998 and the building of the access road to the top. To this day, Crazy Horse receives no Federal grant money, relying solely on Ruth's rock- solid dedication to fundraising. As a result of this dedication, Mrs. Ziolkowski has been presented with countless awards and honors over the years. Her unwavering commitment to the arts and to South Dakota has helped to make this powerful monument a reality.

It gives me great pleasure to commemorate the 80th birthday of Ruth Ziolkowski and to wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Groton, SD, which is celebrating its 125th Anniversary this year.

Located in northeastern South Dakota, Groton was originally developed as a railroad town with the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad rail lines running through town. In fact, the city was named after Groton, MA, because the railroad officials traveling through Groton were already familiar with the name. Groton is a welcoming community with many great traditions including their ice skating festival, the Carnival of Silver Skates.

I would like to offer my congratulations to Groton on their anniversary and I wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Bath, SD. The town of Bath will celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding this year.

Located in Brown County, Bath, like many rural towns in South Dakota, has its roots in agriculture. Now 125 years later, Bath is a great example of what makes South Dakota such a great place to live and do business.

I offer my congratulations to Bath on their 125th anniversary, and I wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, we face a difficult choice in Iraq and the war on terror at large. Iraqis are desperately trying to form a fragile government in the face of overwhelming odds. They are, as John Dickinson once said of American independence, ``braving the storm in a skiff made of paper.''

Despite that, the odds they face, look at the progress that has been made just of late. Prime Minister Maliki just completed the formation of a new Iraqi Government, including filling three national security positions. In the past few weeks, U.S. forces have taken out terrorist leader al-Zarqawi, the head of the snake, and many of his henchmen. This was a huge blow to al-Qaida and a major victory in the war on terror.

Iraqi security forces are growing in number every day. Only a year and a half ago, Iraqi security forces had just begun to form. Today there are 264,400 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, more than double the number of U.S. troops in the region.

At the beginning of this year, the Iraqi forces had 10 brigades and 43 battalions. They controlled areas of responsibility. Only a few months later and those numbers have nearly doubled to 18 brigades and 71 battalions.

Large- and small-scale water treatment facilities have been rehabilitated or constructed for an estimated 3 million people at a standard level of service, with plans underway to deliver clean, safe drinking water to 5 million more.

May oil production was over 2.1 million barrels of oil per day, and the Treasury Department, from the United States, is sending additional professionals to Iraq to provide technical support for the creation of a public finance system that is accountable and transparent. And our State Department is coordinating a broad effort to support an economic policy framework that enhances investment, job creation, and growth.

As Americans, we know, as Thomas Jefferson once said, ``the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'' In America, we like things to happen in a 24-hour news cycle, but it doesn't always happen that way. If we look throughout the pages of history, we have countless examples of those who have come before who have understood the stakes and the risks that were at work in the conflicts they faced. A great figure from history of the last century, Winston Churchill, said wars are not won by evacuations. Churchill and those of his generation knew they were in a pitched battle for future generations, a titanic struggle between good and evil.

A more recent example is, as I was growing up in the State of South Dakota and going through what at that time we knew was the Cold War, I remember a great leader at the end of the last century, Ronald Reagan, when asked his strategy for winning the Cold War, who said: It is very simple, Mr. President, we win; they lose.

I believe that is the same strategy and same objective we need to apply to the war on terror because the evil we face today--it has a different name--is equally deadly. Failure to confront and prevail in this war on terror and we will be creating huge problems for the next generations of Americans.

When we hear this debate on the floor of the Senate and, I believe people have sincere motivations--I don't doubt the motivations of anyone who comes to the floor to debate this issue, and I think it is appropriate to have this debate, but this is not and should not ever be about partisanship. It is not about politics. It is about the future and the security of future generations of Americans.

We have heard lots of people come here and say, Well, staying the course is not a strategy, it is not a solution. Yet at the same time, we know full well that as we look at the threat that we face from the war on terror, failure is not an option either. We cannot afford a strategy that includes running away from our responsibility not only to the people of Iraq but to the people of this country who are counting on us to protect them and to provide security and safety for generations of Americans to come.

I think some simple questions we have to ask are these: Is Iraq a frontline in the war on terror? I believe it is. We have demonstrated that in the last few weeks as we have eliminated many of the leading terrorist figures. We have to ask the question: Are the people we are fighting in Iraq terrorists who want the kill Americans? The answer clearly is yes. We also have to ask the question: If we don't have them pinned down there, will they not be planning and launching attacks against the United States? I believe the answer to that question also is yes.

The good men and women of the United States military are doing good work in Iraq. They are doing the job that we asked them to do. We need to make sure they understand we are there to win.

Mr. President, I would ask simply that as we vote on this amendment and the one that will follow, that we vote them down and give our generals and our troops the ability to complete the work that we have asked them to do, and that is to win, to prevail, and to make this country safer for future generations.

Mr. President, what is the time agreement this evening?

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Virginia, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. We have speakers coming down here and, as they arrive, we will recognize them.

I do want to express my appreciation to Members on both sides who have participated in this debate. We have already had a very spirited debate. There will be others speaking throughout the course of the evening and again tomorrow before we ultimately vote on both of these amendments.

As you know, we have in front of us two amendments. One is a sense of the Senate, a nonbinding resolution, the Levin amendment, and we also have the Kerry amendment, which has a force of law and which would require a withdrawal from Iraq by next summer.

As we consider and contemplate both of those amendments, I know there are strong emotions that Members on both sides feel with respect to this issue, and clearly for good reason. I know in my own particular circumstance, as I travel South Dakota, I hear from people all across my State. I have participated, as many Senators have, in way too many funerals and have heard the playing of taps way too many times in the last year. It is that sentiment I think that makes people in this country very weary regarding the conflict in Iraq and the cost it has brought this country in terms of both blood and treasure. So as we see Members get up and express their thoughts on the Senate floor during the course of this debate, I think they are in many cases reflecting the sentiments of their constituents in their States, as well.

Generally speaking, I think a sense that people have across the country is one of weariness with this conflict in Iraq. At the same time, I think we have to recognize what the stakes are in this debate and what the risks are as well. Clearly, as we have, I think, articulated--Members on our side--throughout the course of this debate, the stakes are high and the consequences of failure are disastrous for our country if we fail in this campaign in Iraq.

I have to say that, like many Members here, I have traveled to Iraq on a couple of different occasions. I was there as recently as a couple of months ago with Senator McCain, as well as with the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, and a number of our Governors and House Members, representing different regions of the country. I had been there a year earlier and, of course, in the course of that year much had changed. In fact, I would have to say there had been, at that time, some mixed results. We had seen the outbreak of sectarian violence after the bombing of the shrine at Samara. But at the same time, we had seen vast improvements in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to provide for their own security. That, in my mind, was very encouraging because at that time about 75 percent of the battle areas were being policed either by Iraqi armed services or the police force, which was a marked improvement from the time I had been there a year before.

Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that, by any measure, if you look at any significant metric in the past year or so, we have seen some improvements and progress made in Iraq and I think, in a substantial way, in the broader war on terror. If you look particularly at Iraq, Prime Minister al-Mailiki, just in the last couple of weeks, completed the formation of a new Iraqi Government, filling many Cabinet positions. If you look at the success our troops have had in taking out the terrorist leader, Musab al-Zarqawi and many of his allies in just the last few weeks, that is a huge blow to al-Qaida and a huge victory for our side in the war on terror.

As I said earlier, the Iraqi security forces are growing in number every single day. Only a year and a half ago, Iraqi security forces had just begun to form. Today, there are 264,400 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, which is more than double the number of U.S. troops who are serving in the region.

The beginning of this year, 2006, the Iraqi security forces had 10 brigades and 43 battalions that controlled areas of responsibility. Here, only a few months later, those numbers are nearly doubled to 18 brigades and 71 battalions. Large- and small-scale water treatment facilities have been rehabilitated or constructed for an estimated 3 million people at a standard level of service, with plans underway to deliver clean, safe drinking water to 5 million more. May oil production was over 2.1 million barrels per day.

The U.S. Treasury Department is sending professionals to Iraq to provide technical support for the creation of a public finance system that is accountable and transparent. The State Department is coordinating a broad effort to support an economic policy framework that enhances investments, job creation, and growth.

I have to say that that progress has occurred--and many of my colleagues have spoken in favor of these amendments in spite of the presence of Americans and our troops' efforts--due to and because of the efforts of our troops and their presence there. Contrary to what I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say throughout the course of this debate, when I was in Iraq, which was as recently as a couple months ago, as I said, the Iraqi political leaders I talked to made it very clear that they thought it was important that we have a presence in Iraq.

I have heard Members get up on the floor and say they have talked to people there and they say they want us out, and they don't want the door to hit us on the way out. But that is certainly not the message that was delivered to me and the delegation I was with when we were there. I also have to say that part of our mission in going there was to impress upon the Iraqi leadership, the political leaders in that country, the importance of forming a national unity government, and to end the sectarianism and the sectarian violence that ravaged that area during the time that we were there. They have made that progress in the last couple of months since our departure from Iraq. They have formed this national unity government, and they continue to make progress toward what I believe is a democracy inclusive of the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and the various groups over there that are all struggling to come together behind a government and to be able to assume responsibility for their own governance and also for their own security.

It seems to me at least that right now it would not be a good signal to send either to them or to our men and women who are fighting the good fight in Iraq that we intend to pull out at any particular time certain. It seems, just as a matter of policy, what we are simply doing when we do that is telegraphing to the terrorists our intentions, and they will just wait us out, that we are going to leave at some point and they will be able to assume control in that region. If there is a vacuum at some point, they will be able to step in and fill it.

I think we are at a strategic turning point, and I think we are at that point due to the good work of the men and women wearing the uniform. We have to listen to what they are saying and what our commanders on the ground are saying. I don't think it is in the best interest of our troops or the overall campaign in Iraq for us to be here in Washington, DC, in a political body such as the Senate-- although clearly we have responsibilities with respect to

funding the troops and supporting them, giving them direction, but I don't think we ought to be passing judgment about when is the best time to pull our troops back.

We are moving in a direction that will enable us to do that, and I believe that our commanders have made it clear that as they see the Iraqi military stand up, as the government stands up, it is only a matter of time before our troops will be able to stand down, and we will begin to draw down some of our troop strengths in the region.

I make that point because, as I mentioned earlier, popular support is waning for the conflict and people are weary and they are frustrated as they see lives lost and they see the cost of the war, but at the same time I think they realize we have a mission to complete there. We listen to the people across the country, but it is also important to listen to what the troops are saying.

Whenever I travel, when I go to Iraq, when I listen to troops who have returned from Iraq, when I talk with National Guard units in South Dakota that have been deployed there, and, frankly, even when I discuss with families who have lost loved ones in Iraq their thoughts about the work we are doing there and whether we are making a difference, I consistently ask the questions: Do you believe we are making a difference? Do you believe progress is being made? Do you believe we are doing the right thing?

I try to ask those questions separate from--and especially when I am traveling into Iraq--the structured settings in which I would get a response--I wouldn't say a canned response but a response that might be less than completely forthright. I ask troops in different situations.

I remember when I was in Iraq in Baghdad the last time, I got up early in the morning and went to the fitness center and worked out in the weight room with a lot of our troops and visited, interacted with them, and asked their opinions on issues. Clearly, there is a belief, I think, that the work there is hard, that the work there has been costly, that people would like to be back home with their families but at the same time who understand the stakes of what they are doing and believe profoundly in the mission and the work we are doing at winning the war on terror.

As I said before, I think we have to, as we listen to this debate, keep in mind that the stakes are very high because it is not just about freedom and democracy in Iraq, as good as that objective may be, it is also about, in a broader sense, the national security of future generations of Americans.

I happen to believe that the war on terror is sort of our, as they used to say, rendezvous with destiny, that many generations that have come before have had to battle evil. We had World War II and Nazism and all the characters of that time who wanted to kill and destroy and maim people. And since that time we have fought the Cold War. It has taken a certain amount of resolve in every one of those circumstances to prevail. But in either of those circumstances had we not had that resolve, had there not been freedom-loving people and leadership committed to finishing that mission, we could be living in a very different world.

They met, in their generation's time, the challenge that was put before them to make the world a safer and more secure place for future generations. That was true in World War II, that was true in the Cold War, and that is true today in the war on terror. I believe it is our time and our generation's, if you want to call it struggle between good and evil, and we have a responsibility to the people of this country and to freedom-loving people everywhere to make sure we do not fail in succeeding, in winning the war against terror, to ensure that future generations do not have to live in constant fear, in constant threat, and perhaps dealing with thugs such as al-Zarqawi and others who want to do evil and want to kill, want to destroy, and have nothing but the worst of intentions for the people of this country and people elsewhere around the world.

Mr. President, this amendment will be voted on tomorrow. I know the Senator from Massachusetts has time to talk about his amendment later. And the Levin amendment will also be voted on. I appreciate and believe it is appropriate for us to have this debate, especially in the context of the Defense authorization bill, where we are debating national security. This is a debate we have every year. I think it is very appropriate to have this discussion.

I don't question the motivations or intentions of people who bring these amendments; I think just in terms of their judgment, it is wrong. I don't think we can telegraph to our enemies what our strategies are. I believe it is important we complete the mission, that we listen to those commanders, those generals, those troops on the ground day in and day out, fighting the good fight, trying to protect our citizens in this country and around the world and future generations from what I believe is a very real, very serious threat to our security as we go forward.

Mr. President, I see that the Senator from Kansas is on the floor. I will be happy, if he is prepared at this time to make his remarks, to yield such time to him as he may consume. We have others who will be joining us in the Chamber. I, at this time, yield to the Senator from Kansas.

The Senator from Kansas, if he wants to yield for a question, I guess that is your prerogative. We have other speakers coming. I am hesitant to allow too much time to burn off the clock.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments of my colleague from Kansas, because I think he too has laid out very clearly what the stakes are in this debate.

As I said earlier, we will have an opportunity to vote tomorrow on both of these amendments, the Levin amendment, the sense of Congress amendment, and then the Kerry amendment, both of which are directed at some sort of a timeline with respect to the conflict in Iraq. As I mentioned earlier, I think as we have undertaken to allow a very open debate on this, which, as I said before, I think is a good thing to do, particularly in the context of debating the Defense authorization bill, we are hearing from both sides some of the emotion that is felt on this and also some very strong opinions and views but, oftentimes, a different interpretation of the facts.

I think what we need to do in this debate is try and focus on the facts as they exist on the ground and not sometimes as we understand them here from what we read in the press, but we need to rely, in my judgment, on those people who are day in and day out fighting the good fight in the theater. Our commanders, our generals, our troops who are conducting this operation over there are doing the Lord's work, in my opinion, in protecting us from terrorist threats that exist. I dare say, as we look at the type of threat we will face in the future, it seems to me, at least, that the success or failure of the operation in Iraq is going to bear heavily on whether we are ultimately going to succeed in the war on terror.

People have argued about whether we ought to be in Iraq in the first place, and that is a debate where Members on the other side have said we shouldn't have been there, we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Most who are making that argument are people who supported the resolution to go there, and I think many of those people also realize as well--and I think the vote will reflect this tomorrow--that they have strong misgivings about us pulling out prematurely and putting in jeopardy the good work that has been done by the troops in that region already.

So I expect tomorrow when we have this vote we will see a very strong vote against the Kerry amendment. I think it will reflect, hopefully, the will of this body at this point in time as we are making good progress, I think, at a very important turning point in the war in Iraq, the progress that has been made on the ground both with respect to the Iraqi security forces as well as with the Government of Iraq as it stands up. We want to make sure we are not telegraphing to our enemies that at this very point where we literally have them on their backs, that we are going to let them up and begin to assume many of the things that they were doing in the past: the killings, the planning, the launching of attacks against people not only in that region but elsewhere around the world and, in many cases, people from freedom- loving countries and American citizens. We want to make sure that never happens again.

My colleague from Alabama is here on the floor. Would the Senator from Alabama like to speak on this subject? We are waiting for the Senator from Georgia to arrive. He is not here yet, so if the Senator from Alabama would like to claim some time, I am certainly willing to yield to him. I think we have about 10 minutes left on our side if the Senator from Alabama would like to make some remarks.

Mr. President, today I recognize Plankinton, SD. The town of Plankinton will celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding this year.

The county seat of Aurora County, Plankinton officially became a town in 1881. Plankinton is well known for being South Dakota's No. 1 hunting and fishing destination. Plankinton has much to be proud of, and I am sure the next 125 years will be even more productive and noteworthy.

I offer my congratulations to Plankinton on their anniversary, and I wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.