Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fluorescent Light Implementation Program to Save Americans Value and Energy, or FLIP-to-SAVE. This bill does something very simple to save Americans money and make us more energy efficient. It distributes compact fluorescent light-bulbs. We can save green two ways by changing our light-bulbs.

Compact fluorescent light-bulbs, or CFLs, are highly efficient light- bulbs that use less than a quarter of the energy of traditional incandescent bulbs. The FLIP-to-SAVE program will spend $50 million to increase public awareness of how CFLs save money and the environment and to distribute them to households across the Nation. It is modeled after a successful program in my home State of Delaware, which distributed 140,000 CFLs through public libraries. The FLIP-to-SAVE program will give States grants, to allow each State to develop a program that suits it best, though I expect many will be modeled after Delaware's system.

Through this program, we can expect to replace 16 million inefficient incandescent bulbs with CFLs, reducing total residential energy bills by over $60 million each year. That means the program ought to pay for itself in terms of savings to families in just one year. And that's without considering the environmental benefits.

By reducing our energy consumption in the equivalent of 127,000 homes, about the size of Buffalo, NY, we can help alleviate our energy dependence and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, one equivalent CFL replacing a 60 watt incandescent will prevent 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide through reductions in coal-powered electricity. That is 1.1 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Energy efficiency is a key to our efforts to address climate change. There are many simple steps we can take to use less energy, and this is one. The FLIP-to-SAVE program will not just reduce carbon emissions, but also reduce electric bills for American families by more than its price tag. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, Senator Lugar and I are introducing the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2007, a bill to permit the transfer of certain U.S. Navy vessels to particular foreign countries. All of the proposed ship transfer authorizations have been requested by the U.S. Navy, with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

Pursuant to section 824(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, as amended, 10 U.S.C. 7307(a), a naval vessel that is in excess of 3,000 tons or that is less than 20 years of age may not be disposed of to another nation unless the disposition of that vessel is approved by law enacted after August 5, 1974. The bill we are introducing today would provide that required approval for eight transfers: two guided missile frigates and two minehunter coastal ships for Turkey; two minehunter coastal ships for Lithuania; and two minehunter coastal ships for Taiwan.

The bill also contains provisions that are traditionally included in ship transfer bills, relating to transfer costs and repair and refurbishment of the ships, and exempting the value of a vessel transferred on a grant basis from the aggregate value of excess defense articles in a given fiscal year.

The authority provided by this bill would expire 2 years after the date of enactment of the bill.

Similar legislation was passed by the Senate last year, but was objected to in the House of Representatives because of concern regarding the proposal to transfer minehunter coastal ships. That issue was also raised by Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, but members of that committee were persuaded by the Executive branch that the transfers would not degrade U.S. Navy capabilities. We invite interested colleagues to let us know if there is any residual concern among Members of the Senate, so that we can arrange for the Executive branch to brief members and determine if there is any objection to expeditious passage of this bill.

Finally, the Department of Defense has provided the following information on this bill:

This bill would authorize the President to grant transfer

five excess naval vessels to Turkey and Lithuania and to sell

three excess naval vessels to Taiwan and Turkey.

These proposed transfers would improve the United States'

political and military relationships with close allies. They

would support strategic engagement goals and regional

security cooperation objectives. Active use of former naval

vessels by coalition forces in support of regional priorities

is more advantageous than retaining vessels in the Navy's

inactive fleet and disposing of them by scrapping or another

method.

The United States would incur no costs in transferring

these naval vessels. The recipients would be responsible for

all costs associated with the transfers, including

maintenance, repairs, training, and fleet turnover costs.

This bill does not alter the effect of the Toxic Substances

Control Act, or any other law, with regard to their

applicability to the transfer of ships by the United States

to foreign countries for military or humanitarian use. The

laws and regulations that apply today would apply in the same

manner if this bill were enacted.

The Department of Defense estimates that the sale of these

vessels may net the United States $52.7 million in fiscal

year 2008.

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

There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fluorescent Light Implementation Program to Save Americans Value and Energy, or FLIP-to-SAVE. This bill does something very simple to save Americans money and make us more energy efficient. It distributes compact fluorescent light-bulbs. We can save green two ways by changing our light-bulbs.

Compact fluorescent light-bulbs, or CFLs, are highly efficient light- bulbs that use less than a quarter of the energy of traditional incandescent bulbs. The FLIP-to-SAVE program will spend $50 million to increase public awareness of how CFLs save money and the environment and to distribute them to households across the Nation. It is modeled after a successful program in my home State of Delaware, which distributed 140,000 CFLs through public libraries. The FLIP-to-SAVE program will give States grants, to allow each State to develop a program that suits it best, though I expect many will be modeled after Delaware's system.

Through this program, we can expect to replace 16 million inefficient incandescent bulbs with CFLs, reducing total residential energy bills by over $60 million each year. That means the program ought to pay for itself in terms of savings to families in just one year. And that's without considering the environmental benefits.

By reducing our energy consumption in the equivalent of 127,000 homes, about the size of Buffalo, NY, we can help alleviate our energy dependence and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, one equivalent CFL replacing a 60 watt incandescent will prevent 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide through reductions in coal-powered electricity. That is 1.1 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Energy efficiency is a key to our efforts to address climate change. There are many simple steps we can take to use less energy, and this is one. The FLIP-to-SAVE program will not just reduce carbon emissions, but also reduce electric bills for American families by more than its price tag. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, Senator Lugar and I are introducing the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2007, a bill to permit the transfer of certain U.S. Navy vessels to particular foreign countries. All of the proposed ship transfer authorizations have been requested by the U.S. Navy, with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

Pursuant to section 824(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, as amended, 10 U.S.C. 7307(a), a naval vessel that is in excess of 3,000 tons or that is less than 20 years of age may not be disposed of to another nation unless the disposition of that vessel is approved by law enacted after August 5, 1974. The bill we are introducing today would provide that required approval for eight transfers: two guided missile frigates and two minehunter coastal ships for Turkey; two minehunter coastal ships for Lithuania; and two minehunter coastal ships for Taiwan.

The bill also contains provisions that are traditionally included in ship transfer bills, relating to transfer costs and repair and refurbishment of the ships, and exempting the value of a vessel transferred on a grant basis from the aggregate value of excess defense articles in a given fiscal year.

The authority provided by this bill would expire 2 years after the date of enactment of the bill.

Similar legislation was passed by the Senate last year, but was objected to in the House of Representatives because of concern regarding the proposal to transfer minehunter coastal ships. That issue was also raised by Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, but members of that committee were persuaded by the Executive branch that the transfers would not degrade U.S. Navy capabilities. We invite interested colleagues to let us know if there is any residual concern among Members of the Senate, so that we can arrange for the Executive branch to brief members and determine if there is any objection to expeditious passage of this bill.

Finally, the Department of Defense has provided the following information on this bill:

This bill would authorize the President to grant transfer

five excess naval vessels to Turkey and Lithuania and to sell

three excess naval vessels to Taiwan and Turkey.

These proposed transfers would improve the United States'

political and military relationships with close allies. They

would support strategic engagement goals and regional

security cooperation objectives. Active use of former naval

vessels by coalition forces in support of regional priorities

is more advantageous than retaining vessels in the Navy's

inactive fleet and disposing of them by scrapping or another

method.

The United States would incur no costs in transferring

these naval vessels. The recipients would be responsible for

all costs associated with the transfers, including

maintenance, repairs, training, and fleet turnover costs.

This bill does not alter the effect of the Toxic Substances

Control Act, or any other law, with regard to their

applicability to the transfer of ships by the United States

to foreign countries for military or humanitarian use. The

laws and regulations that apply today would apply in the same

manner if this bill were enacted.

The Department of Defense estimates that the sale of these

vessels may net the United States $52.7 million in fiscal

year 2008.

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

There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution marking August 2007 as National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month. The intentional misuse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs has reached troubling levels. This resolution takes an important step in raising teens' and parents' awareness of the problem.

While recent studies indicate that the use of illegal drugs has declined somewhat over the past 5 years, the excessive use of legally available drugs has skyrocketed during the same period. The figures speak for themselves: 1 in 5 teens has misused prescription drugs, and more people age 12 or older have recently started misusing prescription pain relievers than smoking marijuana.

The numbers are also troubling for abuse of over-the-counter cough and cold medicines. While over-the-counter and prescription medicines are safe, effective, and potentially lifesaving when used properly, the abuse and recreational use of these medicines can be lethal. Recent studies indicate that 1 in 10 young people aged 12 through 17, or 2.4 million kids, have intentionally abused cough medicine to get high off of its active ingredient, Dextromethorphan. This trend is dangerous, and it must stop.

The problem is multifaceted, but one critical element of the solution is clear: educating teens and parents about the grave dangers of medicine abuse.

The way I see it, the problem of non-medical use of prescription and over-the-counter drugs can be chalked up to two key factors. First, too many teens are under the impression that ``legal'' drugs are safe anytime, in any dose, and even without a prescription or doctor supervision. They are gravely mistaken. Excessive prescription drug use can lead to dependency, overdose, and even death, if not prescribed and monitored by a physician.

Second, these drugs are cheap and easy to obtain. A bottle of cough syrup costs a few dollars and a prescription drug can be taken from a medicine cabinet for free. A February 2007 report released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy reveals that a shocking 47 percent of youth interviewed said they got their prescription drugs for free from a relative or friend. The last thing a parent wants is to become his or her child's ``dealer.'' But that is precisely what happens when they leave medications lying around at home. Hence, these two factors, a false perception of the dangers and a cheap, readily accessible high, have put our teens in danger, and we must act to protect them.

National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month takes an important step to raise public awareness about the dangers that misuse of these drugs pose by promoting the message that over-the-counter and prescription medicines must be taken only as labeled or prescribed, and that when used recreationally or in large doses they can have serious and life- threatening consequences. It reminds parents to educate themselves about this problem and talk to their children about all types of substance abuse, and it encourages national, State, and local officials to increase awareness of this disturbing trend.

I have worked and continue to work in consultation with the Consumer Health Care Products Association and the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, to reverse this trend, and I applaud the important steps that these groups have taken. Among other initiatives, they have created educational toolkits, such as A Dose of Prevention: Stopping Cough Medicine Abuse Before It Starts, which include guides to educate parents, teachers, law enforcement officials, doctors and healthcare professionals, and retailers about the potential harms of cough and cold medicines and over-the-counter drug abuse.

I also commend the nonprofit Partnership for Drug-Free America and its community alliance and affiliate partners for undertaking a nationwide prevention campaign. Their campaign utilizes research-based educational advertisements, public relations, news media and the Internet to inform parents about the prevalence of intentional abuse of medicines among teens, empowering parents to effectively communicate the facts of this dangerous trend to their children and to take necessary steps to keep prescription and over-the-counter medicines safely in their homes.

Prevention is a key component of the solution, and education is a key component of prevention. We've got to do our best to raise awareness on this matter, and reverse the worrisome trend of increasing over-the- counter and prescription drug misuse. This resolution takes an important step towards achieving that goal.

Mr. President, today, Senators Brownback, Boxer, Smith, Bill Nelson and I are introducing a bipartisan resolution. It states clearly what so many of us agree on, the need for a political settlement in Iraq. But then it offers what virtually no one has put forward: a policy to actually secure that political settlement.

We propose that the United States actively support a political settlement among Iraqis based on the provisions of Iraq's constitution that call for creating federal system of government, with strong regions and a limited central government.

And we urge the administration to bring in the international community, including the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors, to support a settlement based on federalism and to convene a conference with Iraqis to help them reach that settlement.

Each of us recognizes this reality: when a country is caught in a cycle of self-sustaining sectarian violence as Iraq is today, there are only four ways to end it:

First, a bloodletting that leaves one side victorious or both sides exhausted. In the case of Iraq, that could take years . . . years we do not have and should not accept.

Second, an open-ended foreign occupation that America cannot sustain.

Third, the return of a strongman, who is not on the horizon. Even if he were, it would be a tragic irony to replace one dictator with another.

Or fourth, a political agreement to form a decentralized, federal system that separates the warring factions and gives them control over the fabric of their daily lives, including the police, jobs, education, marriage and religion.

It's a model that worked in Bosnia. It offers the possibility, but not the guarantee, of a soft landing Iraq.

The Bush administration has another vision for Iraq. But the entire premise of its policy is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It believes Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that keeps the country together and protects the rights of all citizens equally.

But there is no trust within the central government, trust of the government by the people, and no capacity by the government to deliver services and security. And there is no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity soon.

Simply put, Iraq cannot be run from the center, absent a dictator or foreign occupation. If we want the country to hold together and find stability, we have to make federalism work. If we don't, there will be no political accommodation at the center.

Violent resistance will increase. The sectarian cycle of revenge will spiral out of control. The result will be at best the violent break up of Iraq into multiple states--at worst the total fragmentation of the country.

This resolution is part of a comprehensive strategy I have proposed to bring our troops home, to leave behind a stable Iraq and to protect our soldiers so long as a single one of them remains in Iraq.

I believe that is the best way to end the war in Iraq responsibly.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the great sacrifices made by our Nation's veterans on the anniversary of D-day and to once again highlight the need for all of us to do more for those serving today.

On this day 63 years ago, 3,393 American troops gave their lives on the beaches of Normandy defending the freedom of America and its allies. These brave young men sacrificed themselves to stop an empire born of hatred from consuming Europe and fought to prove that freedom and justice would never bow to terror and intolerance. Their valor and service will forever endure in our Nation's memory.

Today, a new generation faces new challenges. The nearly 170,000 American troops currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplify the kind of courage and dedication that has defined the American military throughout our history. And for the sacrifices they are willing to make, we in the Senate, our colleagues in the House, the military leadership, the President, and the American people have an absolute moral obligation to provide our servicemen and women with the best possible protection when we send them to war.

I know that when President Roosevelt sent his men into battle, he did not simply pay lipservice to their courage, he made sure that they had the strongest artillery, the best gear, and the most advanced equipment available. He did not worry that the landing craft he needed for D-day would not be needed when the war ended. He made equipping the force the entire Nation's top priority. Calling on the patriotism of American businessmen to ensure military needs were met before all else. And so I ask why--a half century later--we cannot do the same for our troops today.

Today, improvised explosive devices, IEDs, are the single greatest threat to the lives of our troops, causing 70 percent of U.S. casualties in Iraq. The military has indicated that mine resistant ambush protected, MRAP, vehicles, which provide four to five times more protection than up-armored Humvees, will reduce casualties from IEDs by two-thirds. These vehicles have already been tested fully at Aberdeen Proving Center and our allies have been using similar technologies in the field for years.

So why, then, are these critical vehicles not already in the field?

We learned recently that in February of 2005, Marine commanders in Iraq realized that they needed vehicles designed specifically to defeat the IED threat and asked the Pentagon to build them. Yet 2 years later their request remains unfulfilled. Secretary Gates has indicated that MRAPs compete with other defense spending, which may make it difficult to produce all we need. I just don't get that logic. I can see no greater use of our dollars than getting American troops the best possible protection that exists today. This Nation can afford to do that and whatever else is necessary to do right by our military men and women and their families.

At a later date we will get to the bottom of what happened in 2005, but our first order of business today should be making sure that we get our troops the technology they need as soon as possible. That will require a genuine assessment of how many MRAPs are needed in the field and how much it will cost to build that critically needed inventory.

We also need to provide our troops with all the latest in tested technology to defend against the new weapons which insurgents are using in Iraq: shaped charges called EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators/ projectiles, those shaped-charges which hit our vehicles from the side with devastating effect. We cannot wait another 2 years to field technology to protect against these devices when Americans are dying today.

Today I ask of my colleagues, of the President, of our military commanders, and of the American people, that we pay respect to American servicemembers with more than words. We have the ability and the obligation to do more and we must.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed as in morning business for 3 minutes.

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

Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Illinois. He might be interested to know I met with the Secretary General of the United Nations on Monday in his office. I indicated I wanted to know what he was prepared to propose. As you know, there are three phases to the process whereby the Sudanese have agreed to the implementation of ultimately 21,000 troops made up of the African Union as well as United Nations forces. He indicated he would have an answer as to what he thought might be able to be done probably by the end of Memorial Day. My point to him was similar to my friend from Illinois. If, in fact, the Sudanese Government refuses to allow, on the basis of their sovereignty, the placement of U.N. forces on the ground, that it violates their sovereignty.

I indicated I believed--and others believe as well--that the country forfeits its sovereignty when it participates and engages in genocide and that we, the United States, should push the Security Council to implement the placement of those troops on the ground regardless of what Khartoum says. Further, if they don't, it is my view the United States unilaterally should engage through a no-fly zone as well as the placement of 2,500 troops on the ground to take out the Janjaweed. That is not a political settlement, but the point I made to the Secretary General was, as we talk about the ultimate problem, the need for a political settlement, it is like talking about a patient who has cancer and on the way to the operating room falls off the gurney and slits his jugular vein and is bleeding to death. Everybody says: We have to take care of the cancer. But they are going to bleed to death.

I have been in those camps in Darfur, actually on the border of Darfur. I have visited them in Chad. One camp with 30,000 women and children in it, over 300,000 in that region, deteriorating rapidly. It is a human disaster. I hope if, in fact, the United Nations doesn't act, the Senate will be prepared to act to support pushing the President to have the United States lead.

The point I am making is, I compliment my friend for continuing to keep this in the consciousness of our colleagues and the public.

But, Mr. President, the reason I rise today is to speak because there was not time for me to speak on the supplemental we just voted for.

Earlier this month, Congress sent the President an emergency spending bill for Iraq. It provided the President with every single dollar our troops needed and the President requested, and then some.

It also provided the American people a plan to bring this war to a responsible end, including the language Senator Levin and I wrote, which required to start to bring American troops home within 120 days, have the bulk of our combat troops out of Iraq by March--it turned out to be April 1 of 2008, and to, most importantly, limit the mission of the smaller number that would remain to fighting al-Qaida and training Iraqi troops.

In vetoing that bill, the President denied our troops funding they needed and the American people the plan they want. When the President did that, I urged, like others, that we send the bill back to him again and again and again. But the hard reality is, we found out we did not have the 53 votes we had the first time, that we did not have even 50 votes, that we would not be able to send it back. And ultimately, even if we had the 50 votes, we probably did not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster. We clearly do not have 67 votes to overcome another veto. We do not have those votes either.

I do not like the bill we just voted on, the one I voted for. It denies the American people a plan for a responsible way out of Iraq. It would also start to cut off funds for the Iraqis if the benchmarks are not met. What a silly idea. That would be self-defeating. We are trying to build the Iraqi Army so we can get out of harm's way, and we are going to tell the Iraqis, who have no possibility of getting themselves together, if they do not, we are going to stop training them.

I would like nothing better than to have voted against this bill, but I think we have to deal with the reality. The reality is, first, for now, those of us who want to change course in Iraq do not have the 67 votes to override a Presidential veto. As long as the President refuses to budge, the only way we can force him to change his policy in Iraq is with 67 votes.

Well, we have 49 Democrats and one Independent on our side. We need to bring 17 Republicans along all the way to our thinking, to the way a strong majority of the American people are thinking. We are making progress, but we are not there yet. So it is nice to talk about taking a stand on this, but we do not have the votes, though. We do not have the votes yet to turn our rhetoric into reality. That is the reality.

Secondly, I believe as long as we have troops on the front lines, it is our shared responsibility to give them the equipment and protection they need. The President may be prepared to play a game of political chicken with the well-being of our troops, but I am not, and I will not.

For example, if we do not get the money this bill provides into the pipeline right now, we are not going to have a chance to build and field the mine-resistant vehicles that are being so dearly sought after by the Marine Corps and the rest of the services, and that I have been fighting for. If we build these mine-resistant vehicles, the facts show we can cut the deaths and casualties on the American side as a consequence of these bombings by two-thirds.

We just voted earlier on this bill--because we were going to drag out for 2 years the construction of these vehicles. In 2 years, another 2,000 people could die. They need to begin to be built now, and they all must be built by the end of this year.

Under anyone's plan for Iraq--even those who advocate pulling every single troop out of the country tomorrow--there is a reality: It would take months to get them out. In the meantime, our troops are riding around in humvees that are responsible for these roadside bombs: 70 percent--70 percent--70 percent--of the deaths and 70 percent of the casualties.

As long as there is a single soldier there, I believe we have an obligation, and speaking for myself, I will do everything to make sure he or she has the best protection this country can provide. That is my reality.

Third, I am prepared to cut funding to get our troops out of the sectarian civil war in Iraq and to start bringing most of them home, while limiting the mission of those who remain. That is why I voted for the Reid-Feingold amendment last week. But I am not prepared to vote for anything that cuts off 100 percent of the funding for all troops in Iraq because everyone in this room knows there is going to be a requirement--no matter what happens--to leave some troops in Iraq for a while.

So what are we going to do? Cut funding off for them to satisfy what is a very difficult--difficult--thing to explain to the vast majority of the American people who do not understand why we are not out of this war? We can and we must get most of our troops out by early next year. But we still need a much smaller number. That is my reality as well.

I know this supplemental bill is a bitter pill to swallow for so many Americans who believe, as I do, this war must end. I must tell you, in my present pursuit, it is not a smart vote for me to make because it requires explanation. But I do not believe people fully understand how it is that the people voted in the Democratic Party in November of last year, in large part to end this war, but we have not been able to do so yet.

Well, like it or not, we have a system that protects the rights of the minority and puts the burden on the majority in order to have its way. It also creates a balance of power between the President and the Congress. That is why it takes 60 votes in the Senate--not 51--to get something done if the minority is determined not to have it done. That is why it takes 67 votes in our Constitution to override a President's veto. That is a reality. Not my reality--that is a constitutional reality.

So where do those of us who are determined to end this war go from here? Well, day after day, vote after vote, we must, and we will, work to keep pressure on the Republicans to stop reflexively backing the President and start supporting a responsible path out of Iraq--make them vote against it again and again because, quite frankly, I do not expect to change the President's mind. But I believe we can change the mind of 17 Republicans.

Until that day comes--until that day comes--as long as this President is President, the carnage and chaos and stupidity in the conduct of this war is likely to continue. So I believe with every funding bill, we are going to have to come back at every juncture and require people to vote time and again against the will of American people in order to change the attitude of my colleagues on the Republican side. That is the reality. That is the reality that will bring this war to an end.

Like the most distinguished Member who serves in this body, the Senator from West Virginia, I was here during the Vietnam war, at the end. We all talk about how we cut off funds. We did not cut off funds until the vast majority of the troops were already out. We did not cut off funds until 1975. The reality was--the reality was--we did not do it. It is an incredibly blunt instrument.

So I would have felt better, I would have had less to explain, and it would have been easier, because I have been such a persistent critic, I think most of my colleagues will acknowledge, for the 4\1/2\ years of this war, to vote to cut off the funding. But as we head into the Memorial Day recess, I want to remind my colleagues it is clearly time for us to do our part as well to support our troops.

We in the Senate, and our colleagues in the House, and the military leadership, the President, and the American people have an overriding, overarching moral obligation to provide our forces, who are in the middle of a war, with the full weight of this Nation's productive capacity, and all that is humanly possible, as we send citizens to war, to protect them. We have not done that. This administration has not done that and has not asked for the money to do that. But we have to, and we must. We must speak to one specific situation which I fear, if I do not raise today and every day--as I have in the last 3 weeks--it will not come to pass, it may not get done. It goes back to why I felt I had to vote for this funding.

The issue is these mine-resistant vehicles, but it is bigger than that. The issue is giving the men and women on the front lines a dramatically better chance to survive. It is totally, completely within our power to do that. We have the technology to do that. We have the capacity to do that. We have the money to do that. We need only the will to do that.

We have proven technically that our technology can, in fact, meet this glaring deficiency that is killing so many of our troops. When I say proven, I mean it. Let me be specific.

At the Aberdeen Proving Center, those folks have been working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the past 3 months to fully test every design and variation of the so-called MRAPs, mine-resistant ambush- protected vehicles, vehicles that are out there. By next week, I am told, they will have concrete test data that will back up the purchasing decision the military will have to make.

We already know these mine-resistant vehicles give four to five times more protection than uparmored HMMWVs. We already know the casualty and death rate will go down by two-thirds if we have these mine-resistant vehicles, which means we know we should be doing everything possible, as rapidly as possible, because every day we waste one more life is in jeopardy. We can save two-thirds of the lives being lost there--3,400 dead plus, and almost 24,000 severely wounded.

But why did these amazing test efforts only begin to happen this year? Why are we only now starting to build these mine-resistant vehicles? And why are we building them in such small quantities?

We learned this week the Marine commanders in Iraq in February of 2005--February of 2005--realized they needed these vehicles that have a V-shaped hull. They are designed specifically to defeat what everybody in America, unfortunately, has come to know about: IED, improvised explosive devices. They are the roadside bombs and mines that we know cause 70 percent of all the casualties and deaths.

Now, in February of 2005, the first characteristic these commanders asked for--and I am quoting from the statement they sent to the Pentagon called a Universal Needs Statement--they said: We need a vehicle to ``protect the crew from IED/mine threat through integrated V-shaped monocoque hull designed specifically to disperse explosive blasts and fragmentary effects.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to proceed for 3 more minutes.

The bottom line, in simple English, for nonphysicists is, no matter how much you reinforce a flat-bottomed vehicle, when a bomb goes off under the vehicle, it either penetrates the vehicle or penetrates the vehicle, bounces back, and comes back up off the ground again.

With these V-shaped vehicles, what happens is, when the blast goes off--other than the very point of the V--it takes the blast and, instead of it bouncing back on the ground and bouncing back up, it shoots it off to the side, thereby increasing by two-thirds the likelihood of survival.

No one should give us any of the malarkey I have heard from some in the military and the administration about how any uparmored humvee might have satisfied the need. The bottom line is, they cannot do what these V-shaped vehicles can do.

Now, not only have these mine-resistant vehicles been fully tested at Aberdeen, but our allies have been using similar technologies for years. We are going to get down to the bottom of what happened in 2005. But for now, let me get right to the chase. We have an overwhelming moral obligation to build as many of these vehicles as rapidly as possible and get them to the field as soon as possible--even if we are pulling out every single troop in January. Between now and January, we have an obligation to save lives. It is within our capability and within our power to do so.

One more thing I would bring to the attention of my colleagues. I also learned today--and we will soon find out--I learned today they have also developed, out at the Aberdeen Proving Center, the capacity to be able to thwart the ability of these things called EFPs, explosively formed penetrators. That is going to cost a lot of money. I hope I do not hear from anyone on this floor or anyone in the Congress that, notwithstanding the fact we now have the technology, we are going to wait down the road because it costs too much money to do it now or it will take too much time, and we may have to leave--as one military man said to me: We don't want to build all these. We are eventually going to be coming home. We will have to leave them behind. That is a little like Franklin Roosevelt saying, when asked to build landing craft for the invasion of D-Day: We don't want to build too many of these, it costs too much money, because we are going to have to leave some behind.

I say to my colleagues and to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Secretary Gates ended his press conference today by saying there were competing interests for dollars. That may be true. But when it comes to the life of an American soldier we know--we know--we know for a fact we can protect, there is no other competing interest. There is no other competing interest. Competing interests may exist, but there is only one interest, and that is as this foolish war continues under this President, our sons and daughters are being killed, and we have the capacity right now to begin to build vehicles that will diminish by two-thirds the casualty rate. There are no other competing interests.

So I am going to continue to talk about this, I say to my colleagues, and I hope once we get the final call from the Pentagon, no one here on this floor will rise to tell me we can't afford to do this.

I thank my colleague from West Virginia for his extreme courtesy, as always.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the President of the United States has recently stated that we are remaining in Iraq in order to defeat al- Qaida--a summary of a statement he made yesterday. Well, I wish to briefly state what I think the facts are.

Iraq has become a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. Al-Qaida was not there before the war, and it is there now. It is a problem, but it is not the primary problem. In my view, the President of the United States is inadvertently handing al-Qaida a propaganda victory here by vastly exaggerating its role in Iraq.

The sectarian war--the war between Sunnis and Shias, Sunnis and Shias killing each other--is the core problem, and our troops are caught in the middle of that war. New statistics from Iraq make it absolutely clear that sectarian violence is getting worse and now exceeds the levels immediately prior to the surging of American forces over a month ago.

The focus of the President of the United States on al-Qaida and Iraq, ironically, supports exactly what I have been arguing for. We need to dramatically limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, getting them out of the middle of this sectarian civil war and refocusing their mission, which should be battling al-Qaida from occupying territory in Anbar Province and training Iraqi troops. That would require far fewer troops and allow us to begin to remove American troops immediately and get the vast majority of our combat troops out of Iraq early next year, consistent with the Biden-Levin provision that was in the bill the President vetoed.

Our troops cannot end the sectarian war. Mr. President, 500,000 American troops will not end the sectarian war. What is required is a political solution, even as we continue to take on al-Qaida, which is a growing but not the primary problem in Iraq.

The President continues to bank on a farfetched hope. His hope is well-intended, but it is farfetched that the Iraqis will rally behind a strong democratic central government in Baghdad. But there is no trust within the Government in Baghdad. There is no trust of the Government in Baghdad by the Iraqi people. And there is no capacity by that Government in Baghdad to deliver either services or security.

Instead, the President should throw his full weight--the full weight of his office--behind the solution based upon federalism in Iraq, allowing the Iraqis to have control over the fabric of their daily lives, helping them bring into reality the Iraqi Constitution, where article 1 says: We are a decentralized federal system. We should not impose this. We do not need to. It is already in the Iraqi Constitution.

The President should call for a U.N. summit to get the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors to push for a political agreement. It is not an answer to put up a straw man and say we remain there because of al-Qaida. What is an answer is to call for the permanent five of the United Nations to call for a regional conference; make Iraq the world's problem. I met with the Security Council permanent four, with us being the fifth, in New York on Monday. It is like pushing an open door. They are ready to respond to the President's request to do that. This is doable. This is necessary. The President should begin to focus on the facts, not the fiction of al-Qaida being our rationale for being there.

I will end where I began. Al-Qaida's presence in Iraq has become a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. They were not there before. They are there now. But they are not the primary problem. It is the vicious cycle of sectarian violence. It must end.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Foreign Service nomination of Ross Marvin Hicks.

Foreign Service nominations beginning with Patricia A.

Miller and ending with Dean L. Smith, which nominations were

received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on March 7, 2007. (minus 1 nominee: Mitchell G.

Mabrey)

Foreign Service nominations beginning with Edward W.

Birgells and ending with Andrea J. Yates, which nominations

were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on March 22, 2007.

Mr. President, today I am introducing with my good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, an innovative bill that will help the lives of domestic violence victims. Sadly, domestic violence remains a reality for one out of four women in our country. Experts agree a pivotal factor to ending domestic violence is meaningful access to the justice system. Recent academic research finds that increased provision of legal services is ``one likely significant factor in explaining the decline [of domestic violence] . . . Because legal services help women with practical matters such as protective orders, custody, and child support they appear to actually present women with real, longterm alternatives to their relationships.'' Stopping the violence hinges on a victim's ability to obtain effective protection orders, initiate separation proceedings or design safe child custody.

Yet thousands of victims of domestic violence go without representation every day in this country. A patchwork of services do their best to provide represent domestic violence victims, law school clinics, individual State domestic violence coalitions, legal services, and private attorneys. But there are obvious gaps and simply not enough lawyers for victims and their myriad legal needs due to the abuse, including protection orders, divorce and child custody, immigration adjustments, and bankruptcy declarations. Experts estimate that current legal services serve about 170,000 low-income domestic violence victims each year and yet, there are at least 1 million victims each year. At best then, less than 1 out of 5 low-income victims ever see a lawyer.

I believe there is a wealth of untapped resources in this country, lawyers who want to volunteer. My National Domestic Violence Volunteer Act would harness the skills, enthusiasm and dedication of these lawyers and infuse 100,000 new volunteer lawyers into the justice system to represent domestic violence victims. We should make it as smooth and simple for volunteer lawyers. My bill creates a streamlined, organized and national system to connect lawyers to clients.

I can't overemphasize the importance of having a lawyer standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a victim as she navigates the system. We must match a willing lawyer to a victim as soon as the victim calls the Hotline, walks into a courtroom or involves the police. It is at that crucial moment a victim needs to feel support, and if she doesn't, she may retreat back into the abuse.

To enlist, train and place volunteer lawyers, my bill creates a new, electronic National Domestic Violence Attorney Network and Referral Project that will be administered by the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence.

There are five components of my legislation.

First, it creates a National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Referral Project to be managed by the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. With $2 million of new Federal funding each year, the American Bar Association Commission on Dometic Violence will solicit for volunteer lawyers and then create and maintain an electronic network. It will provide appropriate mentoring, training and technical assistance to volunteer lawyers. And it will establish and maintain a point of contact in each State, a statewide legal coordinator, to help match willing lawyers to victims.

Second, it enlists the National Domestic Violence Hotline and Internet sources to provide legal referrals. The bill will help the National Domestic Violence Hotline to update their system and train advocates on how to provide legal referrals to callers in coordination with the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. Legal referrals may also be done by qualified Internet-based services.

Third, it creates a Pilot Program and National Rollout of National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network and Referral Project. The bill designs a pilot program to implement the volunteer attorney network in five diverse States. The Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice will administer these monies to qualified statewide legal coordinators to help them connect with the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the volunteer lawyers. After a successful stint in five States, the bill will rollout the program nationally.

Fourth, the measure establishes a Domestic Violence Legal Advisory Task Force to monitor the program and make recommendations.

Fifth, the bill mandates the General Accounting Office to study each State and assess the scope and quality of legal services available to battered women and report back to Congress within a year.

A terrific roundtable of groups reviewed and contributed to this legislation, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the American Bar Association, WomensLaw.org, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the Legal Services Corporation, the American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, National Center for State Courts, National Association for Attorneys General, Battered Women's Justice Project, National Association of Women Judges, National Association of Women Lawyers, National Crime Victim Bar Association and National Center for the Victims of Crime.

I want to end today with a story about an American hero, a woman who has been to hell and back and now is a tremendous advocate for domestic violence victims, Yvette Cade. I want to tell it to you because I think it serves as such a powerful message about why battered women should have legal assistance.

Yvette Cade, a Maryland resident, was doused with gasoline and set on fire by her estranged husband while she was at work. Half of her upper body, including her entire face, suffered third-degree burns, the most serious level.

Just three weeks before the attack, a judge dismissed the protective order Yvette had against her husband, despite her protests that he was violent. At the hearing in which the judge dismissed Cade's protective order, the judge told Cade he could not be her advocate, only the ``umpire.'' Cade told him that she no longer wanted to be married to her abusive husband. The judge replied, ``well, then get a lawyer, and get a divorce. That's all you have to do,'' I believe that today's National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act would make getting a lawyer a reality, not just good advice.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing with my good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, an innovative bill that will help the lives of domestic violence victims. Sadly, domestic violence remains a reality for one out of four women in our country. Experts agree a pivotal factor to ending domestic violence is meaningful access to the justice system. Recent academic research finds that increased provision of legal services is ``one likely significant factor in explaining the decline [of domestic violence] . . . Because legal services help women with practical matters such as protective orders, custody, and child support they appear to actually present women with real, longterm alternatives to their relationships.'' Stopping the violence hinges on a victim's ability to obtain effective protection orders, initiate separation proceedings or design safe child custody.

Yet thousands of victims of domestic violence go without representation every day in this country. A patchwork of services do their best to provide represent domestic violence victims, law school clinics, individual State domestic violence coalitions, legal services, and private attorneys. But there are obvious gaps and simply not enough lawyers for victims and their myriad legal needs due to the abuse, including protection orders, divorce and child custody, immigration adjustments, and bankruptcy declarations. Experts estimate that current legal services serve about 170,000 low-income domestic violence victims each year and yet, there are at least 1 million victims each year. At best then, less than 1 out of 5 low-income victims ever see a lawyer.

I believe there is a wealth of untapped resources in this country, lawyers who want to volunteer. My National Domestic Violence Volunteer Act would harness the skills, enthusiasm and dedication of these lawyers and infuse 100,000 new volunteer lawyers into the justice system to represent domestic violence victims. We should make it as smooth and simple for volunteer lawyers. My bill creates a streamlined, organized and national system to connect lawyers to clients.

I can't overemphasize the importance of having a lawyer standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a victim as she navigates the system. We must match a willing lawyer to a victim as soon as the victim calls the Hotline, walks into a courtroom or involves the police. It is at that crucial moment a victim needs to feel support, and if she doesn't, she may retreat back into the abuse.

To enlist, train and place volunteer lawyers, my bill creates a new, electronic National Domestic Violence Attorney Network and Referral Project that will be administered by the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence.

There are five components of my legislation.

First, it creates a National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Referral Project to be managed by the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. With $2 million of new Federal funding each year, the American Bar Association Commission on Dometic Violence will solicit for volunteer lawyers and then create and maintain an electronic network. It will provide appropriate mentoring, training and technical assistance to volunteer lawyers. And it will establish and maintain a point of contact in each State, a statewide legal coordinator, to help match willing lawyers to victims.

Second, it enlists the National Domestic Violence Hotline and Internet sources to provide legal referrals. The bill will help the National Domestic Violence Hotline to update their system and train advocates on how to provide legal referrals to callers in coordination with the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. Legal referrals may also be done by qualified Internet-based services.

Third, it creates a Pilot Program and National Rollout of National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network and Referral Project. The bill designs a pilot program to implement the volunteer attorney network in five diverse States. The Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice will administer these monies to qualified statewide legal coordinators to help them connect with the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the volunteer lawyers. After a successful stint in five States, the bill will rollout the program nationally.

Fourth, the measure establishes a Domestic Violence Legal Advisory Task Force to monitor the program and make recommendations.

Fifth, the bill mandates the General Accounting Office to study each State and assess the scope and quality of legal services available to battered women and report back to Congress within a year.

A terrific roundtable of groups reviewed and contributed to this legislation, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the American Bar Association, WomensLaw.org, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the Legal Services Corporation, the American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, National Center for State Courts, National Association for Attorneys General, Battered Women's Justice Project, National Association of Women Judges, National Association of Women Lawyers, National Crime Victim Bar Association and National Center for the Victims of Crime.

I want to end today with a story about an American hero, a woman who has been to hell and back and now is a tremendous advocate for domestic violence victims, Yvette Cade. I want to tell it to you because I think it serves as such a powerful message about why battered women should have legal assistance.

Yvette Cade, a Maryland resident, was doused with gasoline and set on fire by her estranged husband while she was at work. Half of her upper body, including her entire face, suffered third-degree burns, the most serious level.

Just three weeks before the attack, a judge dismissed the protective order Yvette had against her husband, despite her protests that he was violent. At the hearing in which the judge dismissed Cade's protective order, the judge told Cade he could not be her advocate, only the ``umpire.'' Cade told him that she no longer wanted to be married to her abusive husband. The judge replied, ``well, then get a lawyer, and get a divorce. That's all you have to do,'' I believe that today's National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act would make getting a lawyer a reality, not just good advice.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program Act of 2007.

This legislation addresses some of the disparities in our current system with an innovative way to clear the hurdles that lack of information and high costs often form to prevent low-income students from planning for a college education. A recent report by the Urban- Brookings Tax Policy Center concluded that grant programs ``that are well targeted and have more predictable and larger awards tend to have larger impacts on college-going rates.'' This bill, I am pleased to say, establishes such a program.

Right now, students do not find out if they are eligible for Federal aid until their senior year, much less how much they will receive. If you have ever put kids through college, like I have, you know that this time frame doesn't allow much leeway for planning ahead. An earlier promise of Federal aid will begin the conversation about college early and continue it through high school. That way, students and their families can visualize college in their future, and this goal can sustain them through the moment they open their letter of acceptance. This promise can be especially important in changing the expectations of low-income students whose future plans often don't include college.

My bill would provide funding for a demonstration in four states, each of which would work with two cohorts of up to 10,000 eighth grade students; one in school year 2007-2008, and one in school year 2008- 2009. By using the same eligibility criteria as the National School Lunch Program, students would be identified based on need in the eighth grade. Eligible students would qualify for the Automatic Zero Expected Family Contribution on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, guaranteeing them a maximum Pell Grant. Local educational agencies with a National School Lunch Program participation rate above 50 percent would be eligible for the program.

The Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program would also provide funding for states, in conjunction with the participating local educational agencies, to conduct targeted information campaigns beginning in the eighth grade and continuing through students' senior year. These campaigns would inform students and their families of the program and provide information about the cost of a college education, State and Federal financial assistance, and the average amount of aid awards. A targeted information campaign, along with a guarantee of a maximum Pell grant, would allow families and students to plan ahead for college and develop an expectation that the future includes higher education.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program Act of 2007.

This legislation addresses some of the disparities in our current system with an innovative way to clear the hurdles that lack of information and high costs often form to prevent low-income students from planning for a college education. A recent report by the Urban- Brookings Tax Policy Center concluded that grant programs ``that are well targeted and have more predictable and larger awards tend to have larger impacts on college-going rates.'' This bill, I am pleased to say, establishes such a program.

Right now, students do not find out if they are eligible for Federal aid until their senior year, much less how much they will receive. If you have ever put kids through college, like I have, you know that this time frame doesn't allow much leeway for planning ahead. An earlier promise of Federal aid will begin the conversation about college early and continue it through high school. That way, students and their families can visualize college in their future, and this goal can sustain them through the moment they open their letter of acceptance. This promise can be especially important in changing the expectations of low-income students whose future plans often don't include college.

My bill would provide funding for a demonstration in four states, each of which would work with two cohorts of up to 10,000 eighth grade students; one in school year 2007-2008, and one in school year 2008- 2009. By using the same eligibility criteria as the National School Lunch Program, students would be identified based on need in the eighth grade. Eligible students would qualify for the Automatic Zero Expected Family Contribution on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, guaranteeing them a maximum Pell Grant. Local educational agencies with a National School Lunch Program participation rate above 50 percent would be eligible for the program.

The Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program would also provide funding for states, in conjunction with the participating local educational agencies, to conduct targeted information campaigns beginning in the eighth grade and continuing through students' senior year. These campaigns would inform students and their families of the program and provide information about the cost of a college education, State and Federal financial assistance, and the average amount of aid awards. A targeted information campaign, along with a guarantee of a maximum Pell grant, would allow families and students to plan ahead for college and develop an expectation that the future includes higher education.

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