Floor Statements

Mr. President, every day we see more evidence that this economy is not working for millions of Americans. One troubling trend is the growing divide between rich and poor the widening gap in income inequality and the distribution of wealth in our country.

Over the past 24 years, the most fortunate Americans, in the top 1 percent, saw their incomes more than double from an average of $306,000 to over $700,000. During that same period, the incomes of average Americans grew just 15 percent.

But the poorest fifth of our citizens saw their already inadequate incomes grow just $600--over 24 years.

As a result, the top 1 percent of Americans now get over 12 percent of all the income, up over 50 percent 24 years ago. And the share of the average family actually dropped. The share going to the bottom fifth dropped even more.

We are moving apart, not coming together, as a nation. Last year, the Chair of the Federal Reserve called growing concentration of income in the hands of a tiny minority ``a really serious problem.''

There are many things we need to do to get our economy working for working families. One place to start is at the bottom among those Americans who work at full-time jobs and remain below the poverty line. We should not permit that to happen. If we honor work, we have to reward it. We should not stand for any American to work a full-time job and come home too poor to meet the basic needs.

The minimum wage has not increased since 1996--and all of that increase has been wiped out by the cost of living. The minimum wage today, at $5.15 an hour, is even worth less in today's dollars than the $4.25 rate it replaced.

Today, the minimum wage is worth only a third of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level in more than half a century. The bottom rung of the ladder of opportunity is broken. It is time to fix it.

That is why I am a cosponsor of S. 1062, which will raise the minimum wage in three stages, over the next 3 years, to $7.25 an hour.

That means a pay raise for over 7 million workers and lifting the floor under everybody's wages.

It has been 10 years since we last raised the minimum wage. Over the past few years, we have passed tax cuts that last year alone gave over $100,000 to the wealthiest among us. The gap between rich and poor is now as big as it was during the Great Depression.

Raising the minimum wage is only the first step in restoring balance and fairness to our economy. But it is past time for us to take that step. We must not wait any longer.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3717.

Madam President, if I can respond to my colleague, I have been told that the amendment is germane under cloture.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Mississippi, I do not plan on speaking to it now. I was instructed to get it in line. I will be back to speak to it. It relates to permanent bases in Iraq and calls for no permanent bases in Iraq.

As the Chair says, it is germane, but I do not intend to call it up right now.

I thank the Chair.

I assume unanimous consent was granted.

I apologize. I have been misinformed. I must call up, first, amendment No. 3717, and second degree that amendment with amendment No. 3855. That is my unanimous consent request.

I thank my friend from Mississippi.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I understand the chairman and the ranking member have already accepted my amendment. I will speak to it very briefly.

The amendment they have accepted is straightforward, clear, and simple. It affirms that the United States will not seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq and has no intention of attempting to control Iraqi oil.

I know that is self-evident. We all know that. We know that is not our intention. The fact is, it is urban legend in Iraq, and our enemies in Iraq are using it as a rationale for continued opposition to the United States of America.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report on the bill we are considering, noted:

It's the current policy of the United States to establish

no permanent military bases in Iraq.

I commend the committee for this important finding. It is an important message, as I said, to say not only to the Iraqis but the whole world. The administration policy has been less clear thus far, so hopefully it will be useful to the administration.

I am sure the American Ambassador to Iraq understands the importance of the issue. In March he told Iraqi television stations that the United States has ``no goal in establishing permanent bases in Iraq.'' But, unfortunately, the Ambassador's statement has been clouded by mixed messages from senior administration officials in Washington.

To my knowledge, the President has never explicitly stated that we will not establish permanent bases in Iraq.

On February 17, 2005, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Committee on Armed Services:

We have no intention, at the present time, of putting

permanent bases in Iraq.

``At the present time'' caused a stir.

According to a recent survey, 88 percent of Sunni Arabs in Iraq approve of attacks on American forces in part because they are convinced that the Secretary's statement means that we do have eventually a desire to have a permanent base in Iraq.

On February 15, 2006, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, asked Secretary Rice:

Is it, in fact, the policy of the administration not to

have permanent bases in Iraq?

Rather than answering the simple one word, ``Yes,'' Secretary Rice said during a 400-word exchange on the question:

I don't want to in this forum try to prejudice everything

that might happen way into the future.

Not a very reassuring message to our friends in Iraq. These mixed messages are confusing also to the American people.

But here is the most troubling thing. They make it more dangerous for our armed services, our men and women in Iraq on the ground. General George Casey, the ground force commander in Iraq, told the Committee on Armed Services last September:

Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation.

According to an opinion poll conducted by a the Program on International Policy Attitudes from the

University of Maryland in January 2006, 80 percent of the Iraqis believe we do have plans to establish permanent military bases. And an astounding 92 percent of the Sunni Arabs believe this to be true.

These widespread suspicions contribute to the violence against American military personnel in Iraq, in my view. Why do Iraqis believe we want permanent bases? Why do they think we should subject ourselves to the enormous ongoing costs in Iraq? Do they think we want their sand? No, I think they think we want their oil.

According to a 2004 Pew Charitable Trust international survey on the American invasion of Iraq, all four Muslim states surveyed, including Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, and Morocco, expressed overwhelming suspicion about the stated reasons for America's invasion of Iraq. Majorities in each of the countries believe that control of Mideast oil was an important factor in our invasion.

If you believe, as I do, that we need a regional strategy in Iraq to tackle growing sectarianism, allaying these suspicions is critical. It is critical to winning the battle for the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.

Those who have been to Iraq, as I have--and I know the men and women in the Senate have--everyone here knows these rumors to be unfounded, to be untrue. It is not our intention to control their oil. It also is not who we are.

However, that is not what the people of the Muslim world think. Before we quickly dismiss these fears as ludicrous, remember what the Iraqis have been through in three decades: Three wars and a tyrannical regime that turned paranoia into a way of life, turned neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, brother against brother.

And remember the longer history of Iraq in the region which is ingrained in the Iraqi psyche: 400 years of British and Ottoman occupation have, to put it mildly, led to certain suspicions about foreign presence.

As CENTCOM Commander GEN John Abizaid testified before the Committee on Armed Services last September:

We must make clear to the people of the region we have no

designs on their territory or resources.

The amendment of mine that has been accepted will have no detrimental effect on the military operations of our Armed Forces in Iraq or their ability to provide security for Iraqi oil infrastructure.

The U.N. Council Resolution 1546 recognizes that the American and coalition forces are present in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi Government and that their operations are essential to Iraq's political, economic, and social well-being.

We are anxious for the day when Iraqis can take control of their own destiny, but the Iraqis are suspicious of our intentions and growing increasingly impatient. I have no illusions that a single amendment will somehow change the dynamics of events on the ground, but I believe we have a duty to proclaim and demonstrate through our deeds that we have no intention whatever of either maintaining permanent Iraqi military bases or controlling Iraqi oil.

If I may, I suggest what I proposed this past weekend, a third way on dealing with Iraq. Right now, we have basically two alternatives. The administration has a plan as to how not to lose but not one on how to win. Some of my friends in both parties believe the answer is to figure out how quickly we can pull out our forces. I want our forces out, but I also want to leave behind a stable Iraq so we need not go back in again.

Toward that end, I laid out a proposal. I want to make absolutely clear what it is not. It is not a proposal to partition Iraq. As a matter of fact, I respectfully suggest that the proposal I have laid out, and signed on by Les Gelb and others, is, in fact, the only way to avoid the partitioning of Iraq.

My fellow colleagues, we have gone from the major threat in Iraq being the insurgency to the major threat in Iraq being sectarian violence and a civil war. If you read the major press on Sunday, both the Washington Post and the New York Times have articles from well- respected reporters on the ground in Iraq saying that the nation is dangerously careening toward partition.

My proposal is designed to avoid partitioning. I believe, in order to be able to keep Iraq together and as a united government 5 years from now, we must give them breathing room now--breathing room now. The fact of the matter is, there is no plan on the administration's radar or anyone else's, for that matter, to deal with disbanding the militia or integrating the militia into the Iraqi military.

And, right now, a unity government--which is a necessary precondition for what I am talking about--a unity government, without a plan as to how to keep the Sunnis in the game, is one that is destined for failure.

We have had two unity governments already, and they have gotten us, quite frankly, nowhere. What makes anyone think because you no longer have Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who was disliked by the rest of non-Shiite Iraq, as prime minister that somehow the Sunnis are going to embrace a highly centralized Government, politically controlled by the Shia, and without any Sunni access to resources, and nothing being done about the death squads and the militia coming out of the Sadr camp and the Badr brigade, which has been trained, in part, by the Iranians? They are not likely to sign on.

So the proposal I have laid out, which I will not bore my colleagues with in detail, but I will submit for the Record, the proposal I have laid out has five parts. I came to those conclusions based upon the following assessment: Nothing I propose is in any way contradictory to the existing Iraqi Constitution. Let me remind all my colleagues that the Iraqi Constitution, voted on last year by the Iraqi people, calls for the establishment--after a general election, which took place on December 15--of an Iraqi Government.

Once the Iraqi Government is established--and it must be established, now, by May 20--the Parliament will meet. The Iraqi Parliament will meet, and they will appoint a committee to make recommendations on amendments to the Constitution.

This process was made available because of the hard work of our Ambassador to Iraq. When they voted on the Constitution, you may remember, at the last minute, to save the deal, Zal was able to go out and get the following caveat put into their Constitution: that it was still able to be amended, particularly as it related to regionalism.

For the Sunnis feared, above all, that you would have these two autonomous provinces with all the oil--north and south--and they would be left without any resources in the middle and at the mercy of those two regions. That is why the present Constitution in Iraq calls for the possibility of amendment. And the amendments the administration has been calling for, I have been calling for, and everyone else, are amendments designed to get further Sunni buy-in. For everyone knows, unless the Sunnis buy in, the insurgency will not stop. If the insurgency is not quelled, continued sectarian violence will erupt. And already the genie is out of the bottle.

What has happened now is sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing is becoming a part of the political process in Iraq. In order to be able to stem that, there is a necessity, in my view, to get Sunni buy-in.

Everything has changed on the ground since my first trip to Iraq, right after Saddam's statue fell, with Dick Lugar and with our colleague from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel.

At that time, the Sunni former Baathist insurgents believed, if they resisted, they could drive America out, and they could once again take control of the central government. They believed that Sunni domination, as existed the previous decades, was again achievable.

The Shia thought there was no possibility of them being able to dominate militarily, and they would have to be able to do that politically.

And the Kurds saw themselves as a semiautonomous region not caring much about anything else that happened as long as they maintained their autonomy.

What has happened in the last couple years? Well, what has happened in the last several months, when the mosque was blown up in the Shia area, it unleashed--it unleashed--sectarian violence. It unleashed it in a way that the

brigades of the existing militia began to wreak vengeance and havoc.

Every day you pick up the paper, what do you read about in Baghdad? You read about 2, 12, 14, 50 Sunnis found bound and gagged and shot in the head. You read of death squads.

On this floor, a year and a half ago, I warned that the police department in Iraq was not being organized and was essentially becoming a group of death squad people, dominated by the sectarian groups.

What has our military told us now? They told us just that, just that. And what has happened now is our chief military guy on the ground, General Casey, says we have to radically reform the police. And he calls 2006: the year of the police. The year of the police--a tacit acknowledgment they have been a vehicle of dividing Iraq in sectarian ways rather than one of uniting Iraq.

Read today's papers--the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times. What are you reading? You are reading now that members of the Iraqi Army are refusing to be deployed outside the areas from which they come.

The election on December 15--and I came to this floor afterward--it was heralded as this great democratic movement. What was it? Ninety percent of the Iraqis who voted on December 15 for a new Iraq voted for sectarian or ethnic parties. If you look at the results, it was a call for, effectively, the thing we do not want--division and partition. That is what it was. Only 10 percent of the votes cast in Iraq on December 15 were for nonsectarian, nonethnic parties or candidates.

So much for this notion that there is this nonsectarian oasis that exists in Iraq that we can now drink from in order to unite Iraq.

So I say to my colleagues, the proposal I have come forward with is, I believe, the only reasonable way in which to guarantee there is not a division of Iraq, that there is not partitioning. My proposal calls for a strong central government controlling all of the revenues, all the resources, all the oil revenues, controlling a united army, and in charge of border security and foreign policy.

But what it does is what we did, in part, in Bosnia in the Dayton Accords. It gives the sectarian areas breathing room. It does not insist that the central government and the Parliament dictate to the people in the Sunni area, for example, what their laws on marriage should be, what their laws on divorce and property settlement would be, any more than we allow the Federal Government to tell the people of Mississippi or the State of Washington or the State of Delaware what those laws would be. That is not division.

I remind everybody, what did we do? We won a Revolutionary War, but we could not get a consensus among the 13 Colonies to have a strong, united central Government, so we developed the Articles of Confederation. It took us 13 years to have our Philadelphia moment. It took us 13 years.

Let me go back to Bosnia and continue that analogy. The Dayton Accords called for the establishment of a place called the Republika Srpska. Remember, Serbians within Bosnia-Herzegovina had their own republic, were allowed to keep their army, allowed to keep their military, and three Presidents were elected under the Constitution--a Serbian President, a Bosniak President, and a Croat President. That was necessary to keep this place from splitting and splintering. There was no possibility you would get them all on the same page, in the same box, after the ethnic cleansing that had taken place.

What is happening now in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Now they are rewriting their Constitution. The Republika Srpska is ready to give up their status, give up their military, as well as move from three Presidents to one. Why? They want to become part of Europe. They want to become part of Europe and benefit economically. That is why we needed to give them breathing room.

My proposal does not do a single thing that the existing Constitution does not contemplate in Iraq. And my proposal requires--requires--as a precondition the establishment of the very government that is being established right now. But it goes beyond that. As our Ambassador said to us, down at the White House, in the teleconference with the President and about six Senators and the members of the war Cabinet of the President--he said: Mr. President--I am paraphrasing--we first have to establish this government. Then we need a program. The government needs a program.

Essentially, what my proposal calls for are the outlines of a program, a program whereby the Sunnis are guaranteed a piece of the economic pie.

Now, people would say: Joe, why? And I have run this by at least a half a dozen Iraqi leaders in Iraq--Sunni, Shia, and Kurds--and it ranges from ``not sure'' to ``supportive.''

Why? What has changed? Here is what has changed. This is how the ground has shifted. No. 1, there is now sectarian violence, and ethnic cleansing is underway already now.

Secondly, the Sunnis no longer think there is any possibility of them controlling the central government and all of Iraq any longer. They have given up that notion. They know it is not possible. Some diehard Baathists and terrorists still think that. But the vast majority of the Sunni leadership knows that is not in the cards. That is not where they were 8 months ago.

Now, what happened with regard to the Shia? The Shia now know they can be the dominant political party in Iraq. But they have also figured out, in the last 3 months--they have had, as we Catholics say, their own epiphany. And what was their epiphany? It is that they know they cannot control the insurgents. They know there is nothing they are going to be able to do in the foreseeable future to keep their mosques, the oil wells, and infrastructure from being blown up.

The Kurds. What has happened in the last 3 months with the Kurds? The Kurds value, above all else, their autonomy. They really want independence, but they value their autonomy. Why would they be part of this deal to give up part of the revenues to guarantee the Sunnis have revenues? A simple reason, folks: They have now decided there is no possibility of them occupying Kirkuk and being independent in a country that blows apart. Why? The Turks will take them out. The Turks will take them out. The Turkoman, the Syrians, and others who live in Kirkuk--the Turks will not allow the Kurds in Iraq to essentially have an independent state if a civil war breaks out.

So they have all figured it out. But they do not know quite how to fix it. You may say: Biden, isn't it presumptuous for you to tell them how to fix it?

Quite frankly, every move forward of late has been from an American initiative.

Well, I heard the White House criticize my plan, saying we ought to let the Iraqis do it. Well, how do they explain the fact that the President of the United States got on the phone and told the Iraqis: ``Jaafari is out''? How do they explain the fact of noninterference with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense getting on a plane and going over to Iraq and saying: ``Jaafari is out''?

Do you call that meddling? I call it meddling, but a rational meddling, a rational meddling for their own well-being and, long term, ours.

And I might add, who was it that insisted that the Constitution, that was clearly going to be voted on overwhelmingly, be amended at the last minute to allow further amendment? Our Ambassador? He did it. Why? It made sense in order to get the Sunnis into the election.

Because they were not ready to buy in if they knew this Constitution was cast in stone. That is nice meddling.

What I am proposing does not even approach that. What I am proposing is what everybody knows has to be dealt with in Iraq; and that is, you have to figure a way that the Sunnis have some resources.

Now, if you are a Sunni, and you have been able to get a new government here, where you get a few people who are in the government, what do you think happens in a parliament, where 60 percent of the parliament is dominated by the Shia when it comes to distributing resources in the central government? Do you think you are going to get many hospitals built in the Sunni region? Do you think you are going to get many roads built? Do you think you are going to get many wells dug? These folks are not stupid.

But if you guarantee them a rational piece of the economic pie--sort of like revenue sharing--if you guarantee them something approaching 20 percent of the oil revenues, after the central government has paid for all it needs to make them function, then, in fact, they know they have the ability to provide for their own needs, and they are not going to be left totally out in the cold. It is money distributed by a strong central government.

I would add one other point. People ask: Why would the Sunnis and Shia give up what they now control, all this oil? Why would they give any guaranteed peace to the Sunnis? I will tell you why. Some of my colleagues remember when Dick Lugar and I came to the floor and said there would not be oil to pay for this war.

Why did we say that? We are not all that brilliant. Because we went to the oil men, we went to Mr. Yergin from the Cambridge research outfit that advises all the major oil companies in the United States. He came and testified and said: You can't get oil out of the ground in sufficient amount unless you invest $30 billion in the ground.

What does everybody agree to now? Everybody, including the administration, says we have to invest $30 billion in the ground.

What is the next message coming from the oil industry worldwide? They will not invest sufficiently in Iraqi oil unless there is a centralized oil ministry with actual control and unless there is a reasonable prospect of an end of the insurgency and the prospect of no civil war. So why would the Shia give up part of their oil that is in the south? There is no oil in the middle. It is in the north and the south. Why would they give it up? Because they know with the investment, the oil pie will be so much bigger. Although they would be giving up a little bit with the Constitution, they will be getting considerably more revenue. This is not rocket science. That is what this is about.

There are five pieces of the plan. If we are ready to go to something else, I am happy to cease and desist.

Well, I am. Although I may speak long, I speak seldom. But this is very important to me and to our country. I want to make sure, whether people agree or disagree with my proposal, they understand it. And if they disagree, they know why they disagree. A lot are agreeing.

Here is the deal. There are two alternatives we have now been offered. One side says we are going to keep things from getting worse, where we have no strategy to make them better. The other side of the equation says, things aren't going to get better so we better get our troops out of there as quick as we can. Neither speaks to what I think is our national interest and objective and they are dual: One, get the troops out as rapidly as we can and leave behind as stable and integrated country as possible. Because if we don't leave behind a stable government, we are going to do exactly what I predict is going to happen in Afghanistan. We are going to be back in Afghanistan. Read today's paper. My argument is, we should be sending more forces rather than less. Read the paper today. The paper today says our folks and the Afghanis and others say the Taliban is about to occupy again the Pashtun area, that the rural areas of southeastern Afghanistan are now controlled by the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Hear me. If they are controlled by the Taliban and al-Qaida, mark my words, that control will be consolidated because we left too soon, we don't have enough resources there, and we didn't finish the job. I don't want the same thing happening in Iraq. So just pulling troops out, which I would love to do, pulling them out and trading a dictator for chaos is no answer. Leaving them in without a plan to be able to bring them out with a country left behind is also not a plan.

Here is the deal, five pieces to my proposal, all contemplated by the present Constitution and all totally consistent with the establishment of an integrated government. The first part of that plan requires that there be strong central government control over revenues, border, natural resources, and distribution of them. As part of that, we would also do what the World Bank has done before: Have a World Bank committee overseeing the distribution of resources, which we have done in many countries, to guarantee transparency.

The second piece of this is a requirement that the Constitution be amended, or theoretically it could be done by the Parliament, where the Sunnis are guaranteed a portion of the oil revenues after the central government has paid all its bills, as the Kurds would be and as the Shia would be.

The third piece of this is, instead of doing what the administration has done, which is in this budget cut off more economic aid to Iraq--I find that amazing. We are ending economic aid, reconstruction aid in Iraq. What is the plan for this democracy? We should, in fact, continue economic aid to Iraq, which I am sure is hugely unpopular because it has been so badly spent so far, but require a fundamental change in the distribution of that aid away from megaprojects to small-bore projects. We should, at the same time in part 3, be calling upon our erstwhile partners who committed resources to Iraq to deliver them. And we should have an altar call for our Arab friends in the gulf who are making ExxonMobil look like a piker. They have plenty of money. And it is as much in their interest to see civil war not break out, as it is in ours.

All of that aid should be conditioned on one important thing: A guarantee of human rights and women's rights. People say: Biden, we know you wrote the Violence Against Women Act. What is the deal here? The reason is not only is it morally the right thing to do, it is essential for there to be any prospect of a democratic Iraq emerging in the future, essential that women have rights and are protected. And the condition upon the aid should be the guarantee and ability to oversee not abusing the rights of women in their laws, in their provinces, similar to our States, similar to the State of Delaware, the State of Mississippi, as well as the fact that overall human rights be something that is transparent.

The fourth piece of this plan calls for what I have been calling for, for 2 years, I admit. Dr. Kissinger has been calling for it for a year and three-quarters, Secretary Shultz has been calling for it. Secretary Powell is calling for it. We need a regional conference. We need to get all of Iraq's neighbors, such as we did in Afghanistan, get all of Iraq's neighbors to essentially enter into an agreement not to meddle in Iraq's affairs. People ask: Why would they do that? Why would Iran do that, why would Turkey do that, why would the Arab neighbors do that? A simple reason: The last thing any of them want is a civil war.

They say the Iranians might want a civil war. No. What the Iranians want is what they have. What they have now is Americans being bled financially and physically, with 10 or 12 divisions tied down. That is what the Iranians want.

What they don't want is a civil war. You ask why? In Tehran, the Government of Tehran and the clerics know that 75 to 80 percent of their constituency hates them. They know they are incredibly unpopular. You are sitting on top of an unpopular government, knowing that there is not enough energy for there to be another revolt, another revolution among the people. Do you want 17 million of your Shia Arab brothers-- and don't forget the Iranians are not Arab, they are Indo-European, they are Persian--do you want 17 million of your Shia Arab brothers learning how to fight and learning how to muster their physical capability perhaps for the next year on your border while they are engaging with 60 million of your Shia citizens who don't like you? I guarantee you, the answer is ``no.'' They don't want that.

The Turks don't want a civil war. Civil war means the Kurds are going to go their own way. The last thing the Turks want is the Kurds going their own way. And for Lord's sake, the Arab Gulf States don't want a civil war because they then begin to count their days. So it is in everyone's interest.

How do you get this regional conference? I believe we can and I am confident we will. Get the P5, the permanent 5 of the Security Council to lay

down the parameters for a regional conference, get a U.N. Security Council resolution passed calling for a regional conference on Iraq and nonintervention. And then do what I have been calling for for 2 years, set up a contact group made up of the regional and world powers who will essentially police the deal--not send troops into Iraq, police the deal--so that all those who sign on in the region do not interfere and observe they are not interfering.

The fifth piece of my plan calls for a date to be announced, that by the end of 2008, the majority of American forces will be redeployed. There are two reasons for that. To give the U.S. military certainty, to give them certainty to plan, for there is no possibility of them pulling American forces out in 6 months or 8 months. I am not going to presume to tell the military how long an orderly change in our presence in Iraq would take and when it should take place. If it occurs sooner, all the better.

But the second reason to state it is to let the Iraqis know, as Democrats and Republicans and the President himself have acknowledged, that as long as they think we are there forever, they are not about to step up to the ball to make the hard decisions.

So I believe the only reasonable prospect of holding Iraq together, to avoid partitioning, which could be a disaster, is to give the region breathing room and incentive to stay in the deal.

I hope over time this will get a closer look. As Dr. Kissinger said, and I spoke with him and Vice President Cheney in Philadelphia at the World Affairs Council, when they asked Dr. Kissinger, after my speech along these lines, what he thought, he said he thought the plan warranted very close scrutiny. When I laid it out to Ash Carter, he thought the plan was a good plan. When I laid it out to other people, including former Republican and Democratic members of the foreign policy establishment, it went from: Joe, is this partitioning? and once explained that it wasn't, to not a bad idea, to fully embracing the idea.

This is going to take a while. I remember when I came to this floor in the early 1990s and to the shock and dismay of my colleagues called for us lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnians and calling for air strikes against the Serbs. My colleagues thought that was crazy.

I remember when I came back again, after meeting with Milosevic and him having told people in a private meeting that when he asked me what I thought about him, I told him I thought he was a war criminal and I would spend my career seeing that he was tried as one, my colleagues thought it didn't make sense. It took 3 years to convince the administration we should move. It takes time. But they did move. We didn't lose an American force. We stopped a genocide. We stopped the dismantling of an entire region of the world, and we saved the lives of at least a quarter of a million people.

We can do that again. Don't expect everyone to embrace this plan. I realize it is strategically pretty broad. I realize it takes time to digest. My fervent prayer is, I would love it if 6 months from now, what I proposed proves not to be necessary because the Iraqis have embraced and rallied around this new government, that the insurgency is stopped, that we have not had continued ethnic cleansing, and that there is a unified central government as is. I would be delighted, delighted to stand on the floor and have people say: Told you, Joe. You didn't need the scheme you laid out.

I pray God that is true. But I respectfully suggest to you it is not likely to be true. We better have a plan B for pulling out American troops precipitously without a plan, for keeping them in without a plan is a disaster either way you look at it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speech I delivered earlier this week at the World Affairs Council be printed in the Record.

The Way Forward in Iraq: Avoiding Partition, Preserving Unity,

Protecting America's Interests

It's an honor to be back at the Philadelphia World Affairs

Council.

First, let me apologize to those of you confused by the

schedule. It shows me speaking this afternoon. Instead, you

get me to start your day. Look at it this way: things can

only get better. And they will, because I understand that

Vice President Cheney and Secretary Kissinger will be here

for lunch.

I'd like to focus on an issue that weighs heavily on our

national consciousness--Iraq.

I start from this hard truth: President Bush does not have

a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent

defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor.

Meanwhile, the frustration of Americans is mounting so fast

that Congress might end up mandating a rapid withdrawal, even

at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos, and a civil war

that could become a regional war.

Both are bad alternatives.

Today, I will argue for a third way that can bring our

troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and

preserve Iraq as a unified country.

I developed this plan with Les Gelb, the president emeritus

of the Council on Foreign Relations. It recognizes this new,

central reality in Iraq: a rising tide of sectarian violence

is the biggest threat to Iraq's future and to America's

interests. It is premised on the proposition that the only

way to hold Iraq together, and to create the conditions for

our troops to responsibly withdraw, is to give Shiites,

Sunnis, and Kurds room to breath in their own regions.

Let me tell you what our plan is not: it is not partition.

Let me tell you what our plan is: It is consistent with

Iraq's constitution. It is consistent with the new unity

government. And it is consistent with--in fact, it is

necessary to--the goal of keeping Iraq unified within its

existing borders and not a threat to its own people, its

neighbors, or to us.

I'd like to share the details of our plan with you.

The Current Situation

I was last in Baghdad on December 15th to observe the

elections. It was my sixth trip to Iraq. It was incredibly

moving to see Iraqis go to the polls.

I came back with a finger stained purple from the polling

ink. But I also returned with this warning: we must not, yet

again, prematurely declare, ``Mission Accomplished.'' Yes,

Iraqis voted by the millions, but who did they vote for?

Ninety percent cast their ballots for sectarian and ethnic

parties. Far from a democratic turning point, the elections

reflected Iraq's deepening fault-lines.

Here's where we are in Iraq: we can't lose on the

battlefield and the insurgents can't win as long as enough

U.S. troops remain. But, as both our Ambassador and our top

general in Iraq acknowledge, violence between the Shi'a and

Sunnis has surpassed the insurgency as the main security

threat. It is driving the country toward chaos and civil war.

Simply put, the sectarian genie is out of the bottle.

Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in large parts of

Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces.

Sectarian cleansing has begun in mixed areas, with tens of

thousands of Iraqis fleeing their homes in recent weeks.

Dozens of dead bodies turn up daily in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, Iraqis have less electricity, clean water,

sewage treatment and oil than before the war. Iraq's

government ministries are barely functional. Iraq looks more

like a failing state, not an emerging democracy.

There is no purely military answer to this slow but certain

downward spiral. With more troops and the right strategy, we

might have stopped the insurgency. But no number of U.S.

troops will stop a civil war. To prevent it, we need a

political solution. The national unity government in which

the President has put so much stock is necessary, but it is

not enough. We have had ``unity'' governments for three years

in Iraq. Yet sectarian violence has escalated.

What the Iraqis need now--and what this plan proposes--is a

genuine political way forward that, like our own Articles of

Confederation, gives Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds the

confidence to pursue their interests peacefully in a unified

country. In fact, the central government this plan proposes

for Iraq would be even stronger than America's first

government. With time, we can hope they will come to their

own Philadelphia freedom.

At the same time, I believe we can't pull our forces out

precipitously, just as we can't keep them in Iraq

indefinitely. Withdrawing them too soon would open the door

to all out civil war that could turn into a regional war. It

also would leave parts of Iraq a haven for terrorists. That

would be disastrous for U.S. interests.

What our troops deserve--and what this plan proposes--is a

clear target date for redeployment that, coupled with a

political settlement, will allow us to leave Iraq with our

basic interests intact.

A Five Point Plan for Iraq

Ten years ago, Bosnia was drowning in ethnic cleansing and

facing its demise as a unified state. After much hesitation,

the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton

Accords to keep the country whole by dividing it into ethnic

federations. We even allowed Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs to

retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and

others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are

strengthening their common central government, and disbanding

their separate armies.

The Bush Administration, despite its profound strategic

misjudgments, has a similar opportunity in Iraq.

The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it

and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis the room to run their

own affairs. The central government would be left in charge

of common interests. We would encourage Iraqis to accept this

formula with major sweeteners for the Sunnis, a military

plan for withdrawing and redeploying U.S. forces, and a

regional non-aggression pact. The plan has five elements:

1. One Iraq With Three Regions

The first element is to establish three largely autonomous

regions with a viable but limited central government in

Baghdad.

The central government would be responsible for border

defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues. The

regional governments--Kurd, Sunni and Shiite--would be

responsible for administering their own regions.

The United States shouldn't impose this solution and we

don't have to because federalism is already written into

Iraq's constitution. In fact, the constitution creates a

limited central government and establishes a procedure for

provinces combining into regions.

Increasingly, each community will support federalism, if

only as a last resort. Until recently, the Sunnis sought a

strong central government because they believed they would

retake power. Now, they are beginning to recognize that they

won't. Their growing fear is Shi'a power in a highly

centralized state, enforced by sectarian militia and death

squads. The Shi'a know that they can dominate the government,

but they can't defeat a Sunni insurrection. The Kurds want to

consolidate their autonomy.

Some will ask whether this plan will lead to sectarian

cleansing. The answer is that it's already happening.

According to the Iraqi government, 90,000 people have fled

their homes since the February bombing of the Samarra mosque

for fear of sectarian reprisals. That's a rate of more than a

1,000 people a day. This does not include the tens of

thousands of educated Iraqis from the middle class who have

left the country.

We must build in protections to prevent more cleansing and

to improve security in the big cities, which the

Administration has failed to achieve. Baghdad would become a

federal zone, while densely-populated areas with mixed

populations would receive both multi-sectarian and

international police protection.

A global political settlement won't end the Sunni

insurgency, but it should help to undermine it. The Zarqawi

network would no longer have the sectarian card to play.

Sunni Nationalists and neo-Baathists would still be unhappy

but they would be easier to contain.

Similarly, while decentralization won't end the militia

problem overnight, it is the best way to begin rolling it

back. Right now, there is no plan to disband the militia.

Militias have so heavily infiltrated the security forces that

our training program is effectively making them better

killers. The regions can become magnets for the militia,

integrating them into local forces, and eventually into the

national force. Again, the constitution already provides for

security forces within the regions. There is nothing radical

in this proposal.

The Administration is focusing only on putting together a

unity government. But the ``unity'' government of the past

year wasn't able to govern or stop the violence. This one

offers little more promise. A much broader political

settlement that gives each community breathing space is the

best bet to prevent civil war and to keep Iraq intact.

2. A Viable Sunni Region With Shared Oil Revenues

The second element of the plan is to gain agreement for the

federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by giving them an offer

they can't reasonably refuse.

Basically, they get to run their own region. That's a far

better deal than the present alternatives: either being a

permanent minority in a centrally run government or being the

principal victims of a civil war.

As a major sweetener, we should press the Iraqis to write

into the constitution that the Sunnis would receive about 20

percent of all present and future oil revenues. That's

roughly proportional to their size. And it's far more than

they'd get otherwise, since the oil is in the north and

south, not the Sunni center. These revenues represent the

only way to make the Sunni region viable economically. If

Sunnis reject the deal, there is no guarantee they will get

any oil revenues.

The central government would set national oil policy and

distribute the revenues, which would reinforce each

community's interest in keeping Iraq intact. There would be

international supervision to ensure transparency.

Why would the Shiites and Kurds sign on? Petroleum experts

agree that the Iraqi oil industry will attract much more

desperately needed foreign capital if it is run as a unified

whole. Shiites and Kurds will get a slightly smaller piece of

a much larger pie. That's a better deal than they would get

by going it alone. Guaranteeing Sunnis a piece of this pie

will reduce the incentive of insurgents to attack the oil

infrastructure. That, too, would be good for everyone.

3. More Aid, But Tied To The Protection Of Minority And

Women's Rights

Third, instead of ending U.S. reconstruction assistance, as

the Bush Administration is doing, we should provide more. But

we should clearly condition aid on the protection of minority

and women's rights. The incompetence of the Bush

Administration's reconstruction program makes more

reconstruction money a hard sell. A new aid effort would have

to be radically different than the old one. For example,

instead of international mega-firms pocketing valuable

contracts, spending a huge chunk of each one on security, and

then falling short, Iraqis should be in the lead of small-

scale projects that deliver quick results.

The President also should insist that other countries make

good on old commitments, and provide new ones. He should

focus on the Gulf States. They're enjoying windfall oil

profits. They have a lot at stake in Iraq. They should step

up and give back.

But all future U.S. aid would be tied to the protection of

minority and women's rights, clearly and unambiguously. We

should insist other donors set the same standard. Aid would

be cut off in the face of a pattern of violations.

President Bush is now silent on protecting minority and

women's rights. If they are not upheld, there can be no hope

for eventual democracy in Iraq.

4. Maintain Iraq's Territorial Integrity And Engage Its

Neighbors

Fourth, this plan proposes that the United Nations convene

a regional security conference where Iraq's neighbors,

including Iran, pledge to respect Iraq's borders and work

cooperatively to implement this plan.

The neighbors may see decentralization as a plot to carve

up Iraq. But they have an equally strong interest in not

seeing Iraq descend into a civil war that could draw them

into a wider war. Engaging them directly can overcome their

suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not

undermining it.

The U.N. Security Council should precede the conference

with a call for the necessary declarations. The permanent

members of the Security Council should then sponsor and

participate in the conference to show a united international

front.

After the conference, Iraq's neighbors will still be

tempted to interfere in its weakened affairs. We need an on-

going mechanism to keep them in line. For two years, I've

called for a standing Contact Group, to include the major

powers, that would engage the neighbors and lean on them to

comply with the deal. I'm not alone. Former Secretaries of

State Kissinger, Shultz, and Powell have all called for the

same thing.

President Bush's failure to move on this front is

inexplicable. There will be no lasting peace in Iraq without

the support of its neighbors.

5. A Responsible U.S. Drawdown And A Residual Force

Fifth, the President should direct U.S. military commanders

to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S.

forces from Iraq by 2008. If the military can do it sooner

without precipitating a meltdown, so much the better.

Regardless, the President should make it clear that the

direction we're heading in is out, and no later than 2008.

We would maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force--

perhaps 20,000 troops--to strike any concentration of

terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest, and train its

security forces. Some U.S. troops and police would also need

to participate in a multinational peacekeeping force deployed

to the major multi-sectarian cities, as in the Balkans. Such

a force is now a non-starter with other countries, despite

their own interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq and the region.

But a political settlement, and their role in helping to

bring it about through a regional conference and Contact

Group, could change their calculus and willingness to

participate.

Right now, our troops are still necessary to prevent total

chaos. But unless the Iraqis see and believe we are leaving,

they will have little incentive to shape up. Redeployment is

also necessary because we can't sustain this large a force in

Iraq without sending troops back on fourth and fifth tours,

extending deployments, and fully mobilizing the Guard. That

would do serious long-term damage to our military.

A clear plan also would end the fiction the President keeps

repeating of a ``conditions based draw down.'' What

conditions justify the draw down of 30,000 troops since the

December elections? The situation has gotten worse.

President Bush's refusal to give clear direction leaves our

military unable to plan an orderly draw down. It also leaves

our troops, the Iraqis and the American people in the dark.

It's time to end the guessing. It's time for clarity, but

clarity with responsibility. Redeploying our troops over 18

months will allow the political settlement I've proposed to

take hold and prevent all-out civil war.

Redeeming Our Sacrifice

This plan for Iraq has its own risks. But this

Administration has left us with nothing but hard choices.

The choice I'm proposing may be the only way left to keep

Iraq intact and allow our troops to come home with our

fundamental security interests intact.

The choice I'm proposing can give all of us--Republicans,

Independents, Democrats, Americans--realistic hope that our

sacrifices in Iraq were not in vain.

Thanks for listening.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership on this issue. This bill is a direct result of what we have seen traveling through our States and overseas.

Every time I travel to Iraq and Afghanistan, I am struck by the commitment and professionalism of the men and women of our military. They honor America with their service and dedication.

What is also noticeable to those of us who have been around for awhile is that it is impossible to tell who is in the Guard, the Reserves, or the Active Duty.

Unfortunately, when those same brave men and women return home, it is often to units lacking the most basic equipment--radios, trucks, and engineering equipment.

This is not ``nice to have'' equipment. It is the essential stuff, the most basic equipment, needed to respond to natural disasters or perform homeland defense missions.

When a governor calls the State Adjutant-General because there has been a major winter storm, severe flooding, or any natural disaster, that governor expects the National Guard to have the ability to get to the disaster area, assist those in need, and communicate with State and Federal leaders and others responding.

Today, many State Guard units may not be able to do those basic tasks because they do not have the equipment they need.

Why not? Three reasons.

First, for years the Guard was not given all of the equipment it needed. Most units had 65 to 79 percent of what they needed. So they started the war short.

Second, in 2003 the Army began a policy of leaving equipment in Iraq to reduce transportation costs and to make sure that those in Iraq would have what they needed. The Defense Department estimates that the Army Guard has left over $1.7 billion worth of equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office has found that the Army cannot account for over half of these items and, even worse, the Army has no plan for replacing the equipment.

Third, the Army has a huge equipment bill because the equipment in Iraq is being worn out at two to nine times the rate planned for and the Army is trying to transform itself into a modular force with entirely new and different equipment.

So, I understand why we have equipment shortages. What I don't understand is why the Secretary of Defense doesn't have a plan to fix the shortages.

In April of 2005, the Department of Defense issued a policy directive that said every time equipment is taken from a Reserve unit, a plan had to be developed within 90 days to replace that equipment.

It's been a full year since the policy was made official and yet States across the country are desperately short of needed equipment and have not seen any plans.

Our legislation would simply make 000 live up to its rhetoric and provide the plans it has promised.

There is more that we need to do to address equipment shortages throughout all of our ground forces, but at a minimum we should all be able to agree to start by following the current policy of the Defense Department and make a plan to replace equipment that is not being returned to State units.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership on this issue. This bill is a direct result of what we have seen traveling through our States and overseas.

Every time I travel to Iraq and Afghanistan, I am struck by the commitment and professionalism of the men and women of our military. They honor America with their service and dedication.

What is also noticeable to those of us who have been around for awhile is that it is impossible to tell who is in the Guard, the Reserves, or the Active Duty.

Unfortunately, when those same brave men and women return home, it is often to units lacking the most basic equipment--radios, trucks, and engineering equipment.

This is not ``nice to have'' equipment. It is the essential stuff, the most basic equipment, needed to respond to natural disasters or perform homeland defense missions.

When a governor calls the State Adjutant-General because there has been a major winter storm, severe flooding, or any natural disaster, that governor expects the National Guard to have the ability to get to the disaster area, assist those in need, and communicate with State and Federal leaders and others responding.

Today, many State Guard units may not be able to do those basic tasks because they do not have the equipment they need.

Why not? Three reasons.

First, for years the Guard was not given all of the equipment it needed. Most units had 65 to 79 percent of what they needed. So they started the war short.

Second, in 2003 the Army began a policy of leaving equipment in Iraq to reduce transportation costs and to make sure that those in Iraq would have what they needed. The Defense Department estimates that the Army Guard has left over $1.7 billion worth of equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office has found that the Army cannot account for over half of these items and, even worse, the Army has no plan for replacing the equipment.

Third, the Army has a huge equipment bill because the equipment in Iraq is being worn out at two to nine times the rate planned for and the Army is trying to transform itself into a modular force with entirely new and different equipment.

So, I understand why we have equipment shortages. What I don't understand is why the Secretary of Defense doesn't have a plan to fix the shortages.

In April of 2005, the Department of Defense issued a policy directive that said every time equipment is taken from a Reserve unit, a plan had to be developed within 90 days to replace that equipment.

It's been a full year since the policy was made official and yet States across the country are desperately short of needed equipment and have not seen any plans.

Our legislation would simply make 000 live up to its rhetoric and provide the plans it has promised.

There is more that we need to do to address equipment shortages throughout all of our ground forces, but at a minimum we should all be able to agree to start by following the current policy of the Defense Department and make a plan to replace equipment that is not being returned to State units.

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

Mr. President, as I understand the state of play on the floor--I have been at meetings--it is that I should withhold offering any amendment now. But I am going to speak to an amendment I will be offering during the debate on the emergency supplemental bill.

When we last debated budget matters here on the floor, I came to the floor to indicate I was going to attempt to repeal the $2.6 billion in tax breaks the Energy bill afforded the oil industry. I want to give my colleagues the context in which I raised it then, raise it now, and will raise it again.

It is very easy, I understand--I have been here a long while--to demagog the oil prices and oil industries and big companies, and, when things get tough, to talk about blaming everybody's problems on profits of companies.

Well, the President, today, spoke, as many of us have up to now, on the need to investigate and determine whether there is any gouging going on with energy prices today by American oil companies. But that is not why I am here at this moment.

Senator Specter, the chairman of our Judiciary Committee, held a hearing in the Judiciary Committee a couple weeks ago, before the Easter recess, where he summoned, if I am not mistaken, the CEOs of the six largest oil companies. It may have been only four oil companies and one gas company and one energy company. But I think it was six. I will get for the Record exactly how many. But he included the chairman of the board of Exxon and other major oil companies. And the issue was whether there was some form of price fixing or gouging going on.

It came my turn to question. There had been a good deal of discussion about how much money in annual profits and quarterly profits companies were making. At that time, it was reported that ExxonMobil reported the highest annual profits, $36 billion, of any corporation in American history. That was not a surprise in the sense that they have had a great windfall with oil prices.

We were at our conference lunch today and someone said: Oil is going to go to $4 a gallon. And Senator Boxer, sitting next to me, said: It's already at $4 a gallon in my hometown in California.

Well, it is well over $3 a gallon in most of our constituencies, and we are paying that money, in my view, because we lack an energy policy. We lack an energy policy. And the one that has been written has been written basically to benefit big oil and big gas.

Since President Bush took office, oil prices have doubled, with at least a 100-percent increase, and high gas prices, that make us uneasy at the pump, have been very good for major oil companies. They are more flush than they have been anytime in history. Prices went up during Katrina. Six months later, we learned that all three oil companies made record profits of a total of $111 billion.

So why am I on the Senate floor about this? Everybody knows this. I am stating the obvious. When it came my turn to question in the Judiciary Committee, I asked the question of the chairman of the board of Exxon--and Senator Specter had sworn all of the witnesses in, so they were testifying under oath. And I said: May I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman--the chairman of Exxon. Then I went down the line to the rest.

I said: Are you aware of the incentives in the Energy bill we passed last year--that I voted against--which provided over $2.6 billion in incentives to oil companies in order for them to go out and find, invest, drill, and seek new resources and increase their capability to deliver to the market?

He said: Yes, I'm aware of that.

I said: Do you need that? In light of a $35 billion profit, is there anything you can tell me that would justify us giving the industry, including you, an extra $2.6 billion in incentives?

I might add, so we put this in proportion, for $1.4 billion, we could put portals at every single major port in the world that could detect whether a cargo container had a radioactive device and/or a radiological device or a nuclear device in that cargo container. But it would cost $1.4 billion. We are not doing that right now, in large part because of cost.

So just to put this in perspective, $2.6 billion to incentivize the oil industry now, could be used for a whole lot of other things. I am sure other of my colleagues would suggest there are other ways to use that money, not the least of which would be to reduce the deficit. But there are other ways to do it. So it was not an idle question. We are not just talking about a little bit of money.

I do not think the chairman of ExxonMobil liked my asking the question. But he indicated that, reluctantly, when I reminded him he-- well, in fairness, I probably did not have to remind him he was under oath--but he indicated, no, he did not think that his company or the industry needed that incentive in light of their economic circumstance.

Then I went down the line. And I will submit for the Record the names of each of the companies represented and the names of each of the CEOs sitting in the witness chair. Every one of them answered the exact same way. They all said: No, we do not need this $2.6 billion. We don't need any incentive in order to be able to proceed to maximize productivity, to maximize discovery, to maximize product now.

And then I went back to the chairman of Exxon--I worked my way down

again--and I said: Would you support an amendment I would offer repealing that incentive? And even more reluctantly, he said: Yes.

I then went and asked that question to all these oil company executives, and they all said: Yes.

So not only do they all acknowledge it is not needed, they all indicated, from the best of my recollection--and, again, I will submit for the Record their exact statements--I may be wrong about one or two of them, but not on whether they needed it but whether they supported the repeal. I think they all supported it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that relevant testimony before the Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record.

I have a simple proposition I am going to present to the floor. Although on a supplemental we cannot change tax policy--we all know the blue slip rule, and to use the jargon my friend, the chairman of the committee, understands better than anybody here, I cannot, we cannot, legislate tax policy on this bill that does not originate in the House, and so on--what I do want to do is, I want to get the Senate on record with a sense of the Senate that the Senate Finance Committee report back within 90 days a piece of legislation repealing-- repealing--this $2.6 billion in incentives provided to the oil companies.

Now, the fact is, there are going to be some on this floor--and I am prepared to listen to the argument because when I raised this before, some argued: Well, smaller companies, companies producing less than 500,000 barrels a year maybe need this incentive, that they may need this incentive to maximize their capability of producing oil. I do not think that is accurate, but I am prepared to listen to that. I am prepared to listen to that.

But for the time being, I want to put my colleagues on notice that the last group in the world that needs a tax break now is the oil companies--the absolute last--not because they are bad guys, not because of anything else. I do not even know if they asked for it.

I often say to my friends on this side of the aisle that sometimes folks on my side make a mistake. They don't realize that rich folks are just as patriotic as poor folks. When you are handed windfalls, even poor folks would not turn their nose up at them. I don't know whether the oil companies insisted on this being in the Energy bill or not, but I know they think it is not needed. I do know they say they would support its repeal. So if there is anything--to use the phrase of a former head of the Intelligence Committee--that has been a slam dunk in my 33 years as a U.S. Senator, this should be it. We can reallocate $2.6 billion to needed, worthwhile initiatives and/or reduction of the national debt or deficit, and we can do it with the very recipients of that $2.6 billion saying they don't need it, they don't want it, and they support us taking it away.

So I cannot think of anything at all that can justify us keeping in the law a tax break for a group of folks who do not need a tax break at all. The American people need a break from these incredibly high prices. It seems to me that this is nonpartisan, and it is a no- brainer.

In a speech today, the President finally stated that these companies don't need these tax breaks. Senator Wyden has a provision currently in conference that would accomplish some of this. Senators Feinstein and Sununu have tried to remove some unnecessary tax breaks for these companies as well, which are already rolling in profits. Numerous groups have agreed, from the League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Trust, Public Citizens, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the oil companies--they all agree these incentives are not needed.

We are not talking about $100,000 or $500,000 or a half billion dollars; we are talking about $2.6 billion. You can do an awful lot with $2.6 billion. So I think we should take the first step in taking control of our national energy policy and show the oil companies that we are listening. They say they don't need it. They say they would support it being repealed. Let's not let them down. Let's, for one time, vote on something that everybody, including the recipients, seems to be in agreement with--everybody from the President, to the Senator from Delaware, to the chairman of the board of ExxonMobil, to the National Environmental Trust.

I will withhold doing it now, but I tell the chairman that at some point, I will be here to introduce that amendment, which will call for the sense of the Senate that the tax committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, report back to the Senate within 90 days a repeal of these incentives.

I thank my colleague from Mississippi for listening and the Chair for giving me the floor. Unless somebody else seeks the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

I have been listening to the debate in my office, and I understand the concern the leadership is expressing. It seems to me it boils down to an inadvertent concern. But, folks, I think the Senator from Wisconsin has a point. I have had it as my practice since I have been in the Senate--and I don't think it is so hard--that when you sit down and have a meal, to just split the bill or you pay for it. I don't get that.

Now, I am going to vote with the Senator. I expect he is going to lose on a tabling motion. But maybe there is a way he can come back and tighten up this inadvertent piece. Because I do understand. I have been in a position where I have sat with someone, told them I cannot let them buy my lunch. They go ahead--and it is a friend or somebody who I have known for a while--and I found out later they paid with a company credit card. They told me they were.

Now, I know that is an exception. I know because the person is a friend, it would get me out anyway of the exception under this rule. But the point I am making is, I can picture someone saying ``Don't worry. I am taking care of my share,'' and it is a company credit card. If that is the worry, there ought to be a way to deal with that.

But I say, with due respect--there is nobody I am closer to and think has more wisdom than the Senator from Connecticut--but this one seems pretty simple to me. If someone buys you lunch, buys you dinner, buys you breakfast, you can say: Hey, I want half the bill.

I am going to support the Senator. But maybe if it loses, there is a way to come back at it a different way. I don't know.

Mr. President, today I would like to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of the late Estonian President Lennart Meri. President Meri was an inspiration to his countrymen, a true friend of the United States, and a stalwart advocate for freedom. His passing on March 14, 2006, was a tremendous loss to the people of Estonia and the world.

Born in 1929 to the renowned diplomat and Shakespearean translator Georg Meri, Lennart's early childhood exemplified the plight of the Estonian people. Living in a country ravaged by war and subjected to the brutality of Soviet occupation, Lennart attended nine different schools and studied in four different languages. He was eventually deported from his homeland to Siberia along with thousands of other Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians. During his forced exile, he helped feed his family by picking potatoes.

President Meri experienced more hardship as a boy than most men do in a lifetime, but he was quick to turn his struggles into opportunities. In the course of his itinerant education he became fluent in French, German, English, and Russian. He also developed a tenacity that would serve him well throughout his life.

Lennart eventually came back to Estonia to study history and languages, graduating from Tartu University with honors in 1958. The Soviet Government prevented Lennart from working as an Estonian historian, but he again found possibility where others might have only seen discouragement. Instead of accepting defeat, he established himself as a writer, filmmaker, and dramatist, and used these avenues to preserve Estonia's national identity.

For over 20 years, the Soviet Union refused to allow Lennart to venture beyond the Iron Curtain. Ultimately, when he did travel abroad, he served as a lone, unofficial emissary of what was by then an almost forgotten country. He established contact with politicians and journalists, recounting the story of Estonia to whoever would listen. When the collapse of the Soviet empire finally freed his country, Lennart was able to continue representing his newly independent homeland as an Ambassador and Foreign Minister. Ultimately, Lennart served two terms as President of the country he had loved and championed for so long.

Lennart's accomplishments were myriad; he helped build Estonia's Foreign Service from the ground up, established strong ties with the West, and reached an historic agreement with Boris Yeltsin to end Russia's military presence in Estonia. Beyond these remarkable achievements, though, Lennart left behind a bequest of liberty that will endure along with the free nation of Estonia. I hope each of us will appreciate that legacy and continue working to advance the cause of freedom.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent this morning when we considered Senator Baucus's amendment to the debt limit increase. If I had been here, I would have supported the Baucus amendment.

The Baucus amendment is clearly needed. The massive scale of other nations' accumulation of our debt has added another level of danger and complexity to our international economic relations.

This is a two-way street. The tsunami of debt created by the policies of this administration has to go somewhere. China is one of the major purchasers of that debt. Japan, Great Britain, and others have major holdings, too. In the short term, that has soaked up a lot of our bonds, and helped to keep interest rates down. That is a good thing.

However, that has kept the Chinese currency artificially low, and ours artificially high. So they can sell their products at a discount, and our exports are more expensive. That is a bad thing.

Our trade deficit was a record $726 billion last year; $202 billion of that was our trade deficit with China alone.

But as the rest of the world copes with the waves of U.S. debt, we are now all in the same leaky boat. There is just so much of our debt other nations want to hold. The more of it they accumulate, the closer we are to the day when they will not want any more.

When that happens, slowly or rapidly, our interest rates will go up, the value of their U.S. bonds will drop, and

we will all have big problems. We need both more awareness, and more understanding, of this fundamental threat to our economic well being and the global economy.

But the roots of that threat lie in the disastrous policies of this administration.

Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase.

In the 5 years he has been in office, President Bush has added more to our foreign debt that the 42 Presidents before him. It took 224 years to accumulate $1 trillion of debt to other nations. It took President Bush just 5 years to more than double it.

Over $3 trillion in debt, foreign debt and debt held by Americans, has been piled up by this administration.

When he set out on the course that brought us to this sorry state, the President was clearly and repeatedly warned that massive tax cuts would leave us vulnerable to natural disasters, economic slowdown, or threats to our national security. ``Don't worry,'' the President told us. ``I know what I am doing.''

After 9/11, in the face of what he has himself called the moral equivalent of the World War II, or the Cold War, he insisted that while everything else had changed, he would not change his economic policies.

Facts had changed. His promise to balance the budget, his promise to pay down the debt, were proved to be false.

But he refused to take responsibility for his policies. He refused to admit that a changed world demanded a change of course. His refusal has pushed us deeper and deeper into the hole.

His refusal added $450 billion to the debt in 2002; it added $984 billion in 2003; it added $800 billion in 2004. And here we are again today, adding another $781 billion. With that addition, our national debt will be $8.6 trillion at the end of this year.

The President's budget plans will bring that number to $11.8 trillion at the end of the next 5 years.

This is a record of utter disregard for our Nation's financial future. It is a record of indifference to the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due.

History will not judge this record kindly.

My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a few brief comments on the National Security Agency eavesdropping program.

The truth is that we don't know what is going on under this program. And we have an obligation to find out and a committee set up to do just that.

Senator Rockefeller has been correct from the beginning to call for a full and thorough Intelligence Committee investigation. I couldn't agree more with my colleague from West Virginia and was deeply disappointed his March 7 motion calling for a full committee investigation failed along party lines.

I have been arguing consistently since we found out about this program in December that we need to do here what we did when we originally crafted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA.

For several years preceding the enactment of FISA in 1978, the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees conducted extensive public and private hearings and staff investigations that built the record for the act.

FISA was a bipartisan product; in the Senate, the original version was sponsored by Senators across the ideological spectrum--including Birch Bayh, Ted Kennedy, Mac Mathias, James Eastland, and Strom Thurmond.

The Senate ultimately adopted the bill on April 20, 1978, by a strong bipartisan vote of 95 to 1. At the time the bill was approved in the Senate, I stated that it ``was a reaffirmation of the principle that it is possible to protect national security and at the same time the Bill of Rights.'' I was also a member of the conference committee that produced the final version of the law that was enacted with broad support in October 1978.

I was proud of what we were able to accomplish then and sincerely hoped that we could undertake the same serious, thoughtful, bipartisan process here. And the first step is to undertake a full Intelligence Committee investigation, just as my colleague Vice Chairman Rockefeller has been pushing for months.

It is essential that such a carefully considered record be developed so we don't act precipitously either to legislate or not to legislate. Issues concerning the core privacy rights of U.S. citizens, whether we are fighting an effective war on terrorism, and the fundamental structure of our separation of powers are directly involved here and deserve a full and thorough examination.

At present, our knowledge of the National Security Agency program is severely limited. We need to know much more, for example: No. 1, the nature and scope of the program or programs; No. 2, the extent of the impact on U.S. citizens; No. 3, why the administration did not seek amendments to FISA; No. 4, why some high Justice Department officials were hesitant to approve the program; No. 5, the actual value of the information gathered; No. 6, how decisions are made on whom to target; and No. 7, any procedures followed to protect civil liberties. Senator Rockefeller understands that we need to know the answers to our questions.

But politics and protecting the President seem to be the order of the day. I am told one of the committee Republicans went so far as to say that some of the committee Democrats ``believe the gravest threat we face is not Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but rather the president of the United States.'' That is totally uncalled for; it is ridiculous.

I understand a special subcommittee has now been created to conduct at least some oversight over the NSA surveillance program going forward. But this just isn't enough--the whole committee should be undertaking an investigation, and it should be a full and thorough investigation, just as Senator Rockefeller has called for.

It also is a grave mistake to put forward legislation authorizing the NSA program outside of the FISA system and in advance of actually knowing anything about the program, as some of my colleagues are proposing. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

So I would hope we learn from history and listen to Senator Rockefeller. Let's go back to what worked so well in the past when we all worked together to craft FISA. Let's first hold a full and thorough investigation in the Intelligence Committee.

Then, and only when we know what is going on, should we make a judgment about whether FISA needs to be updated. If additional changes need to be made, this Senator stands ready and willing to engage in that exercise.

Mr. President, during consideration of the Menendez amendment, No. 3054, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting off the Senate floor and missed the vote. As a cosponsor of the amendment to provide funding for port security, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act of 2006. This legislation will provide $41.625 billion over the next 10 years to help ensure that we implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Back in July of 2004, the 9/11 Commission--with distinguished bipartisan leadership from former Republican Governor Tom Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton--issued its report with recommendations of what the government should do to help better protect the Nation.

Nearly a year and a half later, they issued a so-called report card to tell us how well the government had been doing at implementing their recommendations.

Well, it doesn't look good. That report card was riddled with Cs, Ds, Fs, and incompletes.

Most Americans believe that we've taken the obvious steps to close the gaps in our homeland defense. They believe that at the very least, we have a plan, that we've set priorities, and that we know what the next steps are.

But, let me quote from the Commission's report card from December on what we've done to assess the risks and vulnerabilities of our critical infrastructure--transportation, communications, and industrial assets.

Here's what they say--and I quote--``no risk and vulnerability assessments have actually been made. No national priorities are yet established. No recommendations have been made on the allocation of scarce resources. All key decisions on homeland security are at least a year away.''

We all remember 9/11, when we learned for the first time that local police, fire, and rescue units could not communicate with each other and could not communicate with Federal agencies. We saw how this inability probably resulted in many deaths that could have been prevented. Well, we learned during Hurricane Katrina that things are no better today. No better today.

The one place I think most Americans think we've probably done pretty well--passenger screening--actually got an ``F.'' The 9/11 commission reports stated that, in fact, ``few improvements have been made to the existing passenger screening system since right after 9/11.'' With respect to checked bag and cargo screening for commercial flights, the 9/11 Commission gave a score of ``D'', stating that ``improvements have not been made a priority by Congress or the Bush Administration.''

This is unacceptable. This Administration hasn't even filled in the very obvious gaps in our homeland defense. We haven't done it. We simply haven't done it.

The bill that I am introducing today will ensure that we address the most obvious gaps in our homeland defense. It begins with those areas where the Commission graded us and the President as ``F'' and ``D.'' And, it addresses those areas that were outside the scope of the report but are commonsense things that we should be doing, such as securing the rails and providing funding for local law enforcement.

And it's pretty basic. We have done nothing much to deal with the problems most Americans know relate to homeland security. We are safer but not nearly safe enough. The bipartisan commission that got great grades from everybody in the Nation felt compelled on their own dime, their own money, their own resources, not funded by the government, to continue to issue reports and to hold hearings. And they issued a report on December 5 that is, quite frankly, embarrassing and dangerous.

We can and we have to marshal all our country's resources in this struggle. Do you think that the American people would rather us spend this money on securing our ports, our chemical plants, our railroads, our cities, or give it back as a tax break for the wealthiest Americans? Given the choice, the American people said, let's make our streets safer. I'm confident they think we should make the country safer. This legislation will help take us down that path, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, two of the greatest challenges we face today are how to address the needs of post-conflict countries, and countries that are suffering from large-scale natural disasters. These are critical issues, and ones that we cannot afford to get

wrong--for the sake of the people living in those nations, and for the sake of our own security.

On the post-conflict front, a 2004 commission organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Association of the U.S. Army found, to no one's surprise, that ``failed states matter--for national security as well as for humanitarian reasons. If left to their own devices, such states can become sanctuaries for terrorist networks, organized crime and drug traffickers, as well as posing grave humanitarian challenges and threats to regional stability.''

The most obvious case in point is the reconstruction of Iraq. I've spent many hours on this floor, for three years, making clear that we have to get it right in Iraq. And in addition to Iraq, unfortunately, we can talk about many other states that are either unstable, or are tenuously recovering from past conflicts including Liberia, Afghanistan, East Timor, Kosovo, Haiti, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Earthquakes, floods, drought and landslides often have the most dire impacts in developing countries that are the least equipped to respond. The countries ravaged by the 2004 tsunami are on a path to recovery, but there is still a long way to go: Indonesia lost over 150,000 people, with half a million left homeless. In India, almost 20,000 people lost their lives and 2.79 million people were affected, losing homes, land, and livestock. The tsunami set back the Maldives twenty years in development, eviscerating the country's economic backbone and tourism industry.

Recent years also saw devastating natural disasters in other parts of the world. Earthquakes in Iran affected more than 30,000 people. Catastrophic floods in Bangladesh left thousands dead and hundreds of thousands homeless. Recurring droughts in Afghanistan left over 130,000 people--some 92 percent of the population--in need of food or aid.

We need comprehensive--and creative--strategies to address the need to rebuild in countries on the rebound from conflicts or natural disasters. One such strategy is to tap into the store of human as well as financial resources here in the United States. We should allow, and indeed encourage, immigrants to use their skills, talents, and knowledge to help rebuild their native lands. In fact, the diaspora presents one of the best collective resources that exists: these individuals know the communities. They know the culture. They know the language--more than any contractors and more than any humanitarian workers from the outside, no matter how well trained or how much expertise they may have.

So today, I am introducing legislation that would create a ``Return of Talent'' visa program.

The idea is simple: a Return of Talent program would allow legal immigrants in the United States to return home to help with reconstruction efforts. ``Legal Permanent Residents'' will be able to return temporarily to their countries after a conflict or a significant natural disaster to help rebuild, without their time out of the United States affecting their ability to meet the requirements for U.S. citizenship.

Under current law, a Legal Permanent Resident who wants to apply for U.S. citizenship is required to be physically present in the United States for at least half of the five years immediately preceding the date of filing the naturalization application.

This residency requirement could be particularly difficult to meet for those who may have family and friends in their country of origin who are in desperate need of help. We should not stand in their way of returning, allowing them to bring their talent and expertise home, helping them help others at a time of greatest need.

Press articles have highlighted stories of such individuals-- engineers, bankers, teachers and translators--who are willing to contribute to reconstruction efforts. They simply cannot do so without jeopardizing their immigration status.

This legislation would encourage those skilled and committed individuals to return to their countries of origin to revive the business, industry, agriculture, education, health and other sectors that have been weakened or destroyed after years of conflict or devastating disasters.

The Return of Talent program would include any individual who demonstrates an ability and willingness to make a material contribution to the post-conflict or natural disaster reconstruction in their country of origin.

The program would apply to immigrants from countries where U.S. armed forces have engaged in armed conflict or peacekeeping, or countries where the United Nations Security Council has authorized peacekeeping operations in the past ten years. Immigrants from countries which received funding from the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance also would be eligible to participate in the program.

Estimates of individuals who could participate in this program are relatively low. For example, the United States admitted 2,137 Afghani and 3,494 Iraqi immigrants in 2004 who are now Legal Permanent Residents eligible to pursue U.S. citizenship. Immigrants from Indonesia numbered 2,418 and Bangladesh, 8,061 in the same year. Yet, while the program would have a small impact on the U.S. naturalization process, the contributions of even a few hundred individuals could have a tremendous positive effect on reconstruction work.

In simple terms, a Return of Talent program makes sense. Everybody wins: The United States is able to support badly needed rebuilding efforts without increasing foreign aid; immigrants are able to use their skills and resources to help communities without jeopardizing their immigration status; and the people recovering from conflict and disaster receive much-needed assistance.

A Return of Talent program is an important piece of our overall strategy to stabilize and rebuild countries torn by conflict and devastated by natural disaster. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act of 2006. This legislation will provide $41.625 billion over the next 10 years to help ensure that we implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Back in July of 2004, the 9/11 Commission--with distinguished bipartisan leadership from former Republican Governor Tom Kean and former Congressman Lee Hamilton--issued its report with recommendations of what the government should do to help better protect the Nation.

Nearly a year and a half later, they issued a so-called report card to tell us how well the government had been doing at implementing their recommendations.

Well, it doesn't look good. That report card was riddled with Cs, Ds, Fs, and incompletes.

Most Americans believe that we've taken the obvious steps to close the gaps in our homeland defense. They believe that at the very least, we have a plan, that we've set priorities, and that we know what the next steps are.

But, let me quote from the Commission's report card from December on what we've done to assess the risks and vulnerabilities of our critical infrastructure--transportation, communications, and industrial assets.

Here's what they say--and I quote--``no risk and vulnerability assessments have actually been made. No national priorities are yet established. No recommendations have been made on the allocation of scarce resources. All key decisions on homeland security are at least a year away.''

We all remember 9/11, when we learned for the first time that local police, fire, and rescue units could not communicate with each other and could not communicate with Federal agencies. We saw how this inability probably resulted in many deaths that could have been prevented. Well, we learned during Hurricane Katrina that things are no better today. No better today.

The one place I think most Americans think we've probably done pretty well--passenger screening--actually got an ``F.'' The 9/11 commission reports stated that, in fact, ``few improvements have been made to the existing passenger screening system since right after 9/11.'' With respect to checked bag and cargo screening for commercial flights, the 9/11 Commission gave a score of ``D'', stating that ``improvements have not been made a priority by Congress or the Bush Administration.''

This is unacceptable. This Administration hasn't even filled in the very obvious gaps in our homeland defense. We haven't done it. We simply haven't done it.

The bill that I am introducing today will ensure that we address the most obvious gaps in our homeland defense. It begins with those areas where the Commission graded us and the President as ``F'' and ``D.'' And, it addresses those areas that were outside the scope of the report but are commonsense things that we should be doing, such as securing the rails and providing funding for local law enforcement.

And it's pretty basic. We have done nothing much to deal with the problems most Americans know relate to homeland security. We are safer but not nearly safe enough. The bipartisan commission that got great grades from everybody in the Nation felt compelled on their own dime, their own money, their own resources, not funded by the government, to continue to issue reports and to hold hearings. And they issued a report on December 5 that is, quite frankly, embarrassing and dangerous.

We can and we have to marshal all our country's resources in this struggle. Do you think that the American people would rather us spend this money on securing our ports, our chemical plants, our railroads, our cities, or give it back as a tax break for the wealthiest Americans? Given the choice, the American people said, let's make our streets safer. I'm confident they think we should make the country safer. This legislation will help take us down that path, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, two of the greatest challenges we face today are how to address the needs of post-conflict countries, and countries that are suffering from large-scale natural disasters. These are critical issues, and ones that we cannot afford to get

wrong--for the sake of the people living in those nations, and for the sake of our own security.

On the post-conflict front, a 2004 commission organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Association of the U.S. Army found, to no one's surprise, that ``failed states matter--for national security as well as for humanitarian reasons. If left to their own devices, such states can become sanctuaries for terrorist networks, organized crime and drug traffickers, as well as posing grave humanitarian challenges and threats to regional stability.''

The most obvious case in point is the reconstruction of Iraq. I've spent many hours on this floor, for three years, making clear that we have to get it right in Iraq. And in addition to Iraq, unfortunately, we can talk about many other states that are either unstable, or are tenuously recovering from past conflicts including Liberia, Afghanistan, East Timor, Kosovo, Haiti, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Earthquakes, floods, drought and landslides often have the most dire impacts in developing countries that are the least equipped to respond. The countries ravaged by the 2004 tsunami are on a path to recovery, but there is still a long way to go: Indonesia lost over 150,000 people, with half a million left homeless. In India, almost 20,000 people lost their lives and 2.79 million people were affected, losing homes, land, and livestock. The tsunami set back the Maldives twenty years in development, eviscerating the country's economic backbone and tourism industry.

Recent years also saw devastating natural disasters in other parts of the world. Earthquakes in Iran affected more than 30,000 people. Catastrophic floods in Bangladesh left thousands dead and hundreds of thousands homeless. Recurring droughts in Afghanistan left over 130,000 people--some 92 percent of the population--in need of food or aid.

We need comprehensive--and creative--strategies to address the need to rebuild in countries on the rebound from conflicts or natural disasters. One such strategy is to tap into the store of human as well as financial resources here in the United States. We should allow, and indeed encourage, immigrants to use their skills, talents, and knowledge to help rebuild their native lands. In fact, the diaspora presents one of the best collective resources that exists: these individuals know the communities. They know the culture. They know the language--more than any contractors and more than any humanitarian workers from the outside, no matter how well trained or how much expertise they may have.

So today, I am introducing legislation that would create a ``Return of Talent'' visa program.

The idea is simple: a Return of Talent program would allow legal immigrants in the United States to return home to help with reconstruction efforts. ``Legal Permanent Residents'' will be able to return temporarily to their countries after a conflict or a significant natural disaster to help rebuild, without their time out of the United States affecting their ability to meet the requirements for U.S. citizenship.

Under current law, a Legal Permanent Resident who wants to apply for U.S. citizenship is required to be physically present in the United States for at least half of the five years immediately preceding the date of filing the naturalization application.

This residency requirement could be particularly difficult to meet for those who may have family and friends in their country of origin who are in desperate need of help. We should not stand in their way of returning, allowing them to bring their talent and expertise home, helping them help others at a time of greatest need.

Press articles have highlighted stories of such individuals-- engineers, bankers, teachers and translators--who are willing to contribute to reconstruction efforts. They simply cannot do so without jeopardizing their immigration status.

This legislation would encourage those skilled and committed individuals to return to their countries of origin to revive the business, industry, agriculture, education, health and other sectors that have been weakened or destroyed after years of conflict or devastating disasters.

The Return of Talent program would include any individual who demonstrates an ability and willingness to make a material contribution to the post-conflict or natural disaster reconstruction in their country of origin.

The program would apply to immigrants from countries where U.S. armed forces have engaged in armed conflict or peacekeeping, or countries where the United Nations Security Council has authorized peacekeeping operations in the past ten years. Immigrants from countries which received funding from the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance also would be eligible to participate in the program.

Estimates of individuals who could participate in this program are relatively low. For example, the United States admitted 2,137 Afghani and 3,494 Iraqi immigrants in 2004 who are now Legal Permanent Residents eligible to pursue U.S. citizenship. Immigrants from Indonesia numbered 2,418 and Bangladesh, 8,061 in the same year. Yet, while the program would have a small impact on the U.S. naturalization process, the contributions of even a few hundred individuals could have a tremendous positive effect on reconstruction work.

In simple terms, a Return of Talent program makes sense. Everybody wins: The United States is able to support badly needed rebuilding efforts without increasing foreign aid; immigrants are able to use their skills and resources to help communities without jeopardizing their immigration status; and the people recovering from conflict and disaster receive much-needed assistance.

A Return of Talent program is an important piece of our overall strategy to stabilize and rebuild countries torn by conflict and devastated by natural disaster. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution honoring 10

extraordinary women in celebration of International Women's Day.

There is no doubt that women have made tremendous strides towards equality and justice in the last century. International Women's Day provides an important moment to acknowledge the role that women have played in pioneering change and paving the way for millions of women and girls to access equal education, employment and opportunity.

The resolution I submit highlights the achievements of women from all over the world who have made strides as stateswomen, activists and advocates.

They are women who have overcome discrimination, abuse and political oppression to make a difference in the communities in which they live. Women like Kavita Ramdas, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Global Women's Fund, the largest foundation in the world that exclusively centers on advocating women's rights. Her work has helped to improve women's economic independence and increased girls' access to education.

Salma Hayek plays a leading role in helping battered women in the United States and her native country, Mexico. Serving as chief spokeswoman for the Avon Foundations ``Speak Out Against Domestic Violence'' campaign, she continues to stay committed to helping educate and empower women to bring an end to this type of violence. She has donated her time and money to overcoming the horrifying statistic that one in three women worldwide has been raped, sexually abused or beaten in their lifetime, inspiring others to help spread awareness concerning domestic violence.

As Executive Director of the Texas Council on Family Violence and National Domestic Violence Hotline, Sheryl Cates is leading our country in empowering women by offering information and referrals to victims of domestic violence. Since the Hotline started 10 years ago, it has taken over 1.6 million calls in 140 languages and provide support for women across the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Domestic violence is often unseen and unreported because the victims are often too scared to seek help. The Hotline provides a place for victims to turn for assistance, providing individualized support to ensure these women that they are not alone.

At age 11, Lora Jo Foo was a garment worker in San Francisco, California. She is now an accomplished civil rights and labor activist. Having dedicated her life to improving sweatshop conditions, she represents and advocates for low wage industry workers throughout the world. Many garment industry workers are denied public benefits because they do not speak English and government agencies fail to provide them with interpreters or translated documents. A large number of Asian women are pushed into dead-end workfare jobs where they learn no skills and are denied the option of English-language training. The result has been an increase in hunger and illness among Asian immigrant women and their families. Lora Jo Foo represents those women, giving them a voice to advocate for change.

Women like these are why we celebrate International Women's Day, commemorating their selfless achievements in advocating for equal rights and educating others. This past year, the global community has taken significant strides forward towards gender equality and the pursuit of human rights. On January 16, 2006, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was elected as Prime Minister of Liberia, becoming the first elected female head of state in Africa. Germany elected its first female Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel overcame her childhood in North Berlin under communism and triumphed in her role as a leader. This past spring, Kuwait transformed the very structure of their country by amending their electoral laws and allowing women both to vote and to run in parliamentary elections. In Afghanistan, women are gaining equality in representation, overcoming years of severe gender discrimination and gender-based violence. There are now 68 female parliamentarians in the lower house of parliament, making up 27 percent of the representatives; women make up 15 percent of the representatives in the upper house.

Despite the achievements in women's rights during the past year, there is still more to be done, both domestically and internationally. In our own country, the wage gap between genders still exists. Although it has slightly decreased, women make an average of 76.5 percent as much as men do for identical jobs. Internationally, young women are three times more likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS than men because they know less about how to prevent infection and how to protect themselves from violence and discrimination. And while the laws of some countries in the Middle East have been changed to allow women the right to vote and hold office, much remains to be done to ensure they have equal access and opportunity to freely express their political will.

We value the progress that has been made in ending discrimination and advocating gender equality. On International Women's Day, we thank all those who have contributed to our successes. I urge my colleagues to support the immediate passage of the resolution.