Floor Statements

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Let me suggest the absence of a quorum before I do that, just to inform the other side, and then we can proceed.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2666 by Senator McConnell.

The amendment was on the unanimous consent request list last night.

I do want to say in regard to amendment No. 2666, the McConnell amendment, which if it has not been formally proposed, I want to say it is regarding the Chemical Demilitarization Program that is in the Department of Defense. I just want to assure the Senator from Kentucky that this committee will work with the Armed Services Committee to ensure that the program stays on schedule. It is a very important program. The Department of Defense does want to continue the program, and we will work with the Armed Services Committee to assure that.

I would certainly ask the chairman of the committee if that is his wish as well.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, and I appreciate very much his cooperation. I agree with him completely and with the Senator from Kentucky that we need to continue this program, and we will all work together to assure that the funding is there.

Mr. President, let me just ask a parliamentary inquiry now. We had told our colleagues we would start voting at 11 o'clock, and I was just going to ask the status of that information.

And have the yeas and nays been called for?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 2687.

Mr. President, we yield back our time.

Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, the Secretary of the Army called me this morning and said if they cannot continue to plan for the expansion working with the community that it will hamper their efforts in training. It will require them to go to other places for training. It will cause the troops to have to train longer periods.

They absolutely are against this amendment, and they are against the precedent of having Congress say: You cannot continue with expansion plans that are on the books.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that would tie the hands of the Veterans' Administration in trying to make the most and the best use of taxpayer dollars. It would prohibit contracting out if 10 Federal employees are doing a job.

We ought to be trying to promote the Veterans' Administration for being efficient. We should be promoting using taxpayer dollars wisely, not a protectionist amendment, where Congress would tie the hands of the Veterans Affairs Department. I hope we will defeat this amendment.

We already have the capability to affirm that it is in the best interest of the VA to contract out. The VA is required to come to Congress to say it is in the interest of the VA that the contracting out be done. But to say no contracting out if there are 10 Federal employees doing a job is absolutely wrong, and it is going in the wrong direction for efficiency of our taxpayer dollars.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

I ask that one additional amendment be added to the list to be voted on tomorrow, Thursday. It would be the McConnell amendment No. 2666.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona, who has given up his 10 minutes in morning business, be allowed to speak between 2:20 and 2:30 this afternoon.

Mr. President, I wish to first thank the Senator from Rhode Island for allowing me to speak before he gives his major talk about the bill itself because of time constraints. I appreciate that. It was very nice of him to do that.

Let me first say it has been very helpful--it has been terrific-- working with the Senator from Rhode Island. He was, as he said, substituted. This was thrown at him early this year. I know it is something he wanted to do because he has a great record serving in the military himself, but to step in for Senator Johnson because of his illness was a great thing that Senator Reed was able to do, and he has done a great job. I might add that his able staff has had a lot of experience on this bill and were also very helpful. Tina Evans, B.G. Wright, and Chad Schulken have been subcommittee staff members for a long time--longer than any of us, I might say--and it has been very helpful to have that knowledge and experience working with us. Of course, my own staff, Dennis Balkham, Christine Heggem, Yvonne Stone, and Sean Knowles have also contributed greatly to this complicated bill. It is a big bill that affects all our veterans and our military personnel because we do deal with military construction as well as veterans affairs.

This bill, I think, balances all the needs that are necessary very well. We have to take into account, of course, the Active-Duty servicemembers in making sure they have the military construction they need to do the job we are asking them to do. The Guard and Reserve, which I will mention later, is well funded in this bill, and it is something we must do because they are carrying such a huge burden in the war against terror. Local communities, family members of servicemembers, and taxpayers all have a part in balancing any appropriations bill and especially this one.

This bill does address the infrastructure requirements as well as health care and benefits of our veterans. We hope to move it expeditiously across the floor today, I think because Senator Reed and I have worked so well on the bill that we have solved most of the issues that have come forward, and I believe we have done a good job in funding everything that was necessary.

Let me mention a couple of the main points. This subcommittee, with Senator Feinstein and myself, were instrumental in the rebasing effort that has occurred in the Department of Defense. We are bringing back 70,000 of our troops from overseas to be able to train in the United States. This was part of an overseas basing commission bill that Senator Feinstein and I cosponsored that was adopted by Congress and results in 70,000 troops coming back--mainly from Germany and South Korea.

That also has had an impact on military construction because we found when we went overseas that there were training constraints in the bases overseas. We had capacity in America for better training and better opportunities for families. So in this bill we had to address the needs of the military construction for those troops that will be moving back home over the next 5 to 6 years.

In addition, Congress has the responsibility to fund the BRAC. We have a time limit for the Department of Defense to implement BRAC. That requires building not only in the places where troops will be moving in and facilities that will be needed for additions to bases, but also to take care of the needs of bases that are going to be closed. We did fully fund BRAC, and I am pleased that we did. It was our responsibility to do it because we put a deadline on the Department of Defense for the implementation of BRAC. We certainly have to do the required construction in order to meet the deadline.

Army modularity: We are changing the concept. There are smaller fighting units now. We have accommodated that modularity effort through our military construction efforts. Of course, in the global war on terror, which is the major overlying conflict that is going on today with our military personnel, we certainly have to meet the needs of those who are being trained and are going to be deployed in the war on terror, and we have to take care of their families.

The military construction section of the bill provides over $21 billion for construction projects, and it is very strong. It is very important in our transformation effort that we have increased the end strength of the military, as well as changed the types of fighting units that we will have in the military. So that has also provided requirements for different military construction. We are doing exactly what we should be doing in the bill, and we worked very closely with the authorization committee to assure that their priorities and our priorities were the same.

I am very pleased that we also have addressed the needs of the Guard and Reserve. I have to say--and I think everybody who knows the subject would agree--that the funding needs of the Guard and Reserve have not been well represented in the Department of Defense budget submission in the past because of other high priorities for our defense dollars. But the Guard and Reserve are doing so much in the war on terror. They are being deployed and redeployed. We need to make sure they have the facilities and support they need to fulfill their very vital function in the war on terror.

The other part of this bill, which is a major responsibility, is, of course, the Department of Veterans Affairs. The veterans affairs portion of the bill has many good features. As we move forward in the process, I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues to make sure that every dollar is spent wisely and efficiently to serve the needs of our veterans. We have expanded resources to treat the types of injuries and illnesses that our veterans are facing today. We are doing more in mental health and trying to help people with post- traumatic stress syndrome.

We are trying to make sure our facilities are kept up. We have a huge building program. Minor construction will be $751 million. Major construction will be $727 million. It is going to be a major effort to make sure these facilities are cutting edge.

Severe trauma and brain injury is another area we are addressing more fully in this bill than we ever have before. Also, research into prosthetics and the use of artificial limbs is another important focus because we know more of our young soldiers are losing limbs, and we need to make sure we are doing the very best for them to be able to lead normal lives.

We are doing more research into gulf war illness and, as well, geriatric care for the older veterans. These are critical needs. We will never quit looking for answers, and this fully funds the research for the areas in which we need to do more and better for our veterans.

We must continue to adapt to the types of injuries that our warriors experience in the different theaters in which they serve. We must also prepare for future weapons, such as chemical and biological, that may be used against our soldiers.

Mr. President, I think every Member of Congress shares in the desire to fairly compensate, medically treat, and

honor the veterans who have sacrificed and borne the responsibility of military service. The VA provides health care free of charge to address any and all service-connected illnesses or disabilities, mental or physical, including those conditions which may manifest decades after military service.

The VA also provides health care free of charge to low-income veterans regardless of service-connected disability or illnesses. We always have--and always will--take care of our Nation's veterans.

In summary, this Congress has shown its resolve time and again to care for our men and women in uniform, as well as the more than 7 million veterans in America. We owe them our gratitude. We owe them what they deserve, and that is that we take care of their needs.

I appreciate working with Senator Reed. I appreciate that we have done everything we could with the dollars we had. I will just note that President Bush has said if the bill stays as it is now, he plans to sign it so that we can implement it quickly. But I do hope as we go through the conference process and finish the bill on the Senate floor that we will keep to the intention of the bill, that we will make sure we stay within the guidelines we have.

We have added $4 billion above the President's request already. That money is allocated, so there will be relatively few changes I think we should make if we are going to expeditiously send the bill to the President for his signature and assure that he will sign it.

Once again, I thank Senator Reed and his able staff for accommodating me and allowing me to make my statement. I look forward to getting this bill out tomorrow and on to the President very soon.

Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that Yvonne Stone, a Presidential management fellow assigned to the Appropriations Committee from the Department of Veterans Affairs and a staff member of the committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on this bill.

Mr. President, 10 minutes would be fine. I ask to bring my amendment up, set aside the pending, and continue to speak.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would help address what some view as a serious problem in the underlying legislation, and what others might view as a matter of fairness in the underlying legislation.

The purpose of the SCHIP program is to provide health insurance benefits to children in families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. We define that criteria as families up to 200 percent above the Federal poverty line. The current Federal poverty line for a family of four is $20,650. The Federal poverty line for Hawaii and Alaska is a little higher. Two hundred percent, then, would be $41,300.

My State of Texas maintains its SCHIP program consistent with the original purpose and therefore allows a family of four making $41,300 to qualify for SCHIP coverage. When my constituents see the bill before us allowing families of four making up to 300 percent of the Federal poverty line, which is $61,950, to qualify for Government-supported health care, many believe this is going too far. They certainly take issue with families making up to 400 percent of the poverty line, which would be $82,600, receiving Government-funded health insurance.

I have heard the supporters say that allowing coverage above 200 percent of the Federal poverty line argue that the cost of living in certain areas necessitates higher Federal poverty level coverage. One only has to utilize the various cost-of-living calculators on the Internet such as those found on bankrate.com or CNN/Money to see that a salary in one area of the country can be worth a very different amount than in another. The cost-of-living calculators adjust income by comparing the cost of housing, utilities, and transportation, all of which have a significant impact on the actual need of the family.

For example, in this chart, you see that the cost of living in Austin, TX, would be $40,000, whereas after you add housing, utilities, and transportation, if you compare that to the cost in Washington, DC, it would be $58,697, or rather the salaries would be commensurate after you add the cost-of-living indicators in it.

The bill before us does not make a direct connection between the cost-of-living standards and approvals of SCHIP plans beyond the 200 percent Federal poverty line restrictions. It doesn't seem right to arbitrarily allow coverage of families beyond 200 percent of the Federal line if there is no relationship to the cost of living. If $41,300 of family income in one State is equal to a higher amount in another due to a cost of living that exceeds the national average, my proposal would accommodate that. Why don't we say in this legislation that similarly situated families will be treated similarly. That is what my amendment would do.

Under my amendment, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be required to factor in the cost of living in States that are seeking to cover families above 200 percent of the poverty line. Utilizing the most recent index data from the Council for Community and Economic Research, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Secretary shall adjust the Federal poverty line throughout specific areas in those States that reflect the actual cost of living in those specific areas. The Secretary could then approve families up to twice the new adjusted Federal poverty line, accounting for a higher cost of living in that area.

The Secretary would break down the analysis by county or metropolitan statistical area to ensure that States with high-cost areas in some parts of the State and low-cost areas in other parts of the State would not receive the same amount. This does what I think everybody has said we need to do, and that is adjust if there is a cost-of-living increase, but not lump it State by State.

In my State of Texas, there will be metropolitan areas with a higher cost of living. So if my State wanted to go above the 200 percent, the Secretary could factor in where there needed to be an adjustment. If it were over the 200 percent in a metropolitan area such as Dallas, it might be a different calculation than if it is in a rural area, say Lubbock. This seems to me to equalize the unfairness of a whole State getting the higher rate through a waiver which the bill before us is trying to mitigate by putting a limitation on the percent above the poverty line that a State may go, but why not do it by SMSA--the Statistical Metropolitan Area--or by county, where you can get the adjustment that is right and fair.

My amendment is very simple. The 200 percent of the poverty line, when adjusted for the cost of living in a specific area, could equal $45,000, it could equal $50,000, or it could be right at the poverty line. If you needed to go above it, the Secretary would be able to say in New York City, for instance, there should be an adjustment, but in upstate New York, perhaps not.

So this is the amendment. I think this brings reasonableness, rationality, and equity to approvals beyond the nonadjusted Federal poverty limits. If you do not go above the 200 percent which is in the law, you would never have to make these adjustments. There are certainly metropolitan areas that have a legitimate claim to a higher cost of living, but it does not necessarily mean the whole State should be given that kind of adjustment, and it would be more reasonable for the taxpayers throughout America to know that the people were getting the adjustment if they needed it, but not if they didn't.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut also for the process, and I certainly would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which I think is what should end up in the final bill. It is simple, it is clear, and it is fair.

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

Mr. President, we have been talking about having one State or another State have a different cost of living, and therefore having to have a waiver for the whole State. My amendment says the Secretary will look at the cost of living in an area of the State, a county, or a statistical metropolitan area, so you don't have to have a waiver for a whole State, if it is only one city or one area in that State that needs the extra help. That is my amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. President, it just makes common sense that you would want to help the areas that have a clear cost-of-living adjustment need, but you don't have to do it for a whole State if it isn't needed in the whole State. It would save taxpayer dollars. It is equitable. It is fair, and it is responsible. I hope we can adopt it.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the conference report on the America COMPETES Act, and I congratulate Senators Bingaman, Alexander, Domenici, Ensign, Kennedy, Enzi, Inouye, Stevens, and Nelson and their staff for their tireless and dedicated work to bring this vital and important legislation to final passage.

There is much in this legislation that will enable the United States to secure its leadership position in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and enhancing our competitiveness and capacity for innovation.

I am especially pleased that the conference report contains the language I included in the original Senate bill, reported last year by the Commerce Committee and eventually incorporated into S. 761, as passed by the Senate.

That provision directs that NASA be included in activities collectively referred to as the American Competitiveness Initiative, or ACI. This corrects what many of us believe was a serious oversight in the original announcement of the ACI, which failed to recognize the long-standing history of NASA's role in inspiring young people to pursue academic and professional careers in science and engineering.

The report also contains new language recognizing the potential contribution to education and competitiveness that can be made by the International Space Station National Laboratory and directs NASA to develop specific plans to realize that potential.

I look forward to working with Senator Bill Nelson, chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics and Related Sciences, in drafting reauthorization legislation for NASA next year, in which we can provide more specific authorization and guidance for NASA in fulfilling its important new role as part of the ACI.

This report also provides vital new authority to the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation to enable them to address the pressing national needs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and enhancing the Nation's competitiveness and innovation capabilities.

It is vital that the new provisions provided by this legislation are used as they are intended. This legislation includes generous new authority for appropriations for the Departments of Energy and Education and for NIST and the National Science Foundation. These additional spending limits are not provided to enable them to continue to do business as usual at an increased level of spending.

My single concern about the conference report is the action taken by the conference to modify section 7018. That provision, which was an amendment I offered during the markup of S. 1280, the original Senate Commerce Committee portion of what became S. 761 and was preserved in the conference chairman's mark considered in the conference, provided that the National Science Foundation take into account the degree to which proposed research contributed to the needs of innovation, competitiveness, the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics. At the same time, that provision included language--consistent with the recommendations of the report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm''--that such prioritization not be used to inhibit investments in other important areas of research or scientific endeavor.

Despite that limitation, the conference adopted an amendment to that section which, essentially, includes virtually all research conducted by the NSF in the prioritization, including research that may or may not contribute to meeting the critical needs outlined in that report and which inspired the creation of this legislation. The awarding of such a ``blank check'' to NSF removes any assurance that the expanded authority and resources provided through this legislation will actually be used to carry out the purposes for which they have been granted.

While I am disappointed with this change, I am very much in favor of adopting the report. But as a member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Innovation, and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, I will closely follow how the National Science Foundation implements the authority granted by this legislation.

By passing this report, Congress will have taken an extremely important and significant step toward meeting what are clearly and widely recognized as critical national needs. We cannot let that step be compromised by allowing a business-as-usual approach by the departments and agencies we are tasking to meet those needs.

Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield for one observation?

I understand totally that the leader has to have a firm principle. And when it is one person who is late because they are off the Capitol grounds or something such as that, I think that is totally legitimate. This is something I have never seen since I have been here for 14 years, where a committee is meeting, with important business, and the committee chairman gives people the comfort that the vote is going to be held, and so you have around 12 people who have missed a vote.

I ask one more time for, just this once, a unanimous consent and will propose a unanimous consent that we reopen this vote.

Yes. Madam President, I was going to ask if the Senator from California will yield because I do think there is a bipartisan consensus that we need to address AgJOBS. We need to have a temporary worker program going forward that fills the need for the economy of our country to continue to thrive.

I know the Senator from California has worked for years on this issue, as has the Senator from Idaho. I hope we can have a freestanding bill that would encompass agricultural workers and other temporary workers, such as food processors.

I was visited this week by a food processor who very much wanted comprehensive immigration reform and worked very hard for it. He is trying to do the right thing. But he is very concerned about the business being able to do the job it needs to do to get its product out on the market. I think we are going to have an employer crisis in this country if we don't have a legal way for people to hire workers for jobs that are otherwise going unfilled.

I commend the Senator from California, the Senator from Idaho, and the Senator from Georgia who is on the floor as well who has worked for AgJOBS. We need a temporary worker program that, going forward, provides for our economic basis. I hope we can have a freestanding bill that will be amendable so that we can do that part of comprehensive reform.

I believe 90 percent of the people in this body want border security, which we may be able to achieve tonight, and the majority leader and the minority leader have begun to get an agreement on that issue. Plus, I believe there is 90 percent agreement on a temporary worker program and taking care of the agricultural businesses. I hope those who are saying immigration reform is dead are wrong in that we can do certain parts of it where there is an overwhelming consensus in this body.

I thank the Senator from California for bringing this issue up and sticking to it.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: In lieu of voting now, there will be no votes until 12:20?

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 44, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. This legislation will send a strong message to the military leaders of Burma, by renewing sanctions on their repressive regime.

As cochairman of the Senate Women's Caucus on Burma, I have closely monitored the political situation in that country, including the inspiring leadership of a brave Burmese woman named Aung San Suu Kyi. A former winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Aung San Suu Kyi has dedicated her life for the cause of democracy in her country, including spending most of the last 17 years in detention.

I have been proud to stand with the other women of the Senate on behalf of

Aung San Suu Kyi. In May 2007, I joined with Senator Feinstein, Senator Collins, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Stabenow, and First Lady Laura Bush at a press event to show our concern for Aung San Suu Kyi, and the need for the U.S. Government to stand in solidarity with the people of Burma.

By passing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we are reengaging on this vitally important issue, but we can do, and must do, more. The U.S. should use its influence with the international community to put more pressure on the Burmese to stop the murder, oppression and imprisonment of its critics.

I know that Aung San Suu Kyi--and the people of Burma--will applaud this landmark legislation. I am proud to cosponsor it, and I urge my Senate colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Higher Education Act.

As the reauthorization process continues, I want to highlight the importance of Hispanic serving institutions, and the role they play in educating our young people.

Hispanics should have equal opportunities to receive a first-class education, acquire the great jobs available in America, and pursue careers in any field they desire whether it's in medicine, law, business, education, or any other area.

According to the Census Bureau, Hispanics account for 1 out of every 2 people who are added to the Nation's population, and the U.S. Department of Labor estimates that 1 out of every 3 new entrants into the job market is Hispanic.

The percentage of Hispanic students attending college has also increased significantly over the past few years. Because the pace of bachelor's degrees earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, we must keep pace by increasing the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve these students.

Our Hispanic serving institutions are able to do this.

HSIs continue to grow in stature and importance. They are home to more than half of all Hispanic college students, and are often the only viable opportunity for individuals of modest economic backgrounds to attend college.

I applaud HSIs for their vast contributions in providing quality educational opportunities to all Hispanic and non-Hispanic students who attend their institutions, and I remain committed to opening the doors of higher education to all Americans and keeping our country competitive in the global marketplace.

I have been proud to serve as cochair of the HSI Coalition with my colleague Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. The success we have had over the past 11 years has us headed in the right direction.

From 1995-2006, we have helped increase Federal funding for HSIs from $12 million to $95.8 million.

The Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2006 removed two barriers harmful to Hispanics and HSIs. It eliminated the 2-year wait-out period between HSI grant funding cycles, as well as the requirement that 50 percent of the Hispanic student population must be low-income for the school to qualify for HSI eligibility. This allows HSIs to gain funding without costly gathering and reporting of individual Hispanic-student income documentation, which was often impossible for universities to obtain.

Despite the positive increases in college student matriculation, overall, too few Hispanic-Americans graduate from high school or college. If we fail to properly educate one-half of America's future workforce, there will be disastrous economic and social consequences for the entire nation.

As we debate the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I want to make sure that our federally-designated HSIs are not left behind.

I have ensured that the language of the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act is included in the Higher Education Act. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, which I introduced with Senator Bingaman on February 13, 2007.

This bill provides fellowships and support services for graduates, as well as facility and faculty improvements at HSIs. It provides new technology for distance education and collaborative arrangements with other institutions.

In addition, the legislation increases the authorization of the current HSI program to $175 million and authorizes $125 million for the new HSIs graduate program for fiscal year 2008.

I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to support these provisions.

Mr. President, I object.

I objected in a timely manner.

Mr. President, I know you did not hear me. I do not wish to keep the Finance Committee from meeting, except that we are being held for a very important debate, and if we are going to be held all night, it is the view of this side of the aisle that we should keep our focus on this very important issue.

I rise today because this is such an important issue. I don't think that any Member on this side of the aisle or the other side of the aisle is insincere in their views about this issue. However, I do think the disagreements are real, and it is so important the Senate do the right thing.

We have before us, of course, the Levin-Reed amendment that would set a deadline and cut and run from Iraq without regard to anything that is happening on the ground, including the Commander in Chief saying: For God's sake, don't do this.

So here we are debating this issue, but I think we have to also talk about the other amendments that are on the floor because we are now seeing a different variety. I think there is an attempt by many of our Members to send a message. None of these amendments would ever become law. I think everyone acknowledges that fact. So every

amendment is meant to send a message.

What is the message? It appears that the basic message is to tell the President to change strategy or to tell the generals what to do or to micromanage the war. All different kinds of messages are being proposed. But the bottom line is we cannot tell the Commander in Chief, the President, nor the commander on the ground, General Petraeus, how to do the jobs we have asked them to do.

We heard from General Petraeus what the new strategy will be. I keep hearing people say we need a new strategy, we need a new plan, a new plan. We are in a new plan. Yet the Senate is saying, when the new plan is in its infancy, when the surge of 30,000 troops has been completed within the last 2 weeks, and yet we are pulling the rug out from under the new plan. It doesn't make sense.

I think all these amendments, all these message amendments are the wrong thing at the wrong time.

We cannot be the greatest country on Earth and say: Don't trust us if you are our ally and don't fear us if you are our enemy, and that is exactly what we would be doing if we leave Iraq because Congress sets a deadline regardless of what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

This is about a war on terror and protecting our freedom. This is not about Iraq in a bubble. It is about making sure we kill terrorism in the world before it ruins everyone's way of life and takes freedom from everyone.

If I believed we were just talking about Iraq and we could isolate Iraq, that would be a very different issue. This is about making sure Iraq does not become a stronghold for terrorists. This is to make sure al-Qaida cannot take over Iraq, terrorize the people as they have done in Afghanistan for years, have the oil revenue that would feed their terrorism and spread it throughout the world. We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq.

General Petraeus came to the Senate and put forth a different strategy. I asked him about it because I was very concerned about this strategy. I asked him why he thought this would work, why putting our troops outside the green zone and outside the protected areas embedded with Iraqis would make a difference. He talked about the need for the counterinsurgency measures to go to them and also to win over the neighborhoods.

It is said by those who are on the ground and have the expertise that it is working, that in the al-Qaida strongholds, the people have turned against al-Qaida and they are helping America, and the tribal chieftains in that area are helping Americans.

I met with a group of veterans today who have come back from Iraq. They were so strong and so firm. It was uplifting to talk with them, just as it is uplifting to talk with any of our Active-Duty military. But to talk to those who have had the boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan who know what is happening, one cannot fail to believe we have to give this a chance, even if the armchair generals back here in Washington have misgivings.

It is so important that despite the sincerity of so many of my colleagues in trying to put forward a different kind of a message, a message to the President--do a plan; we are not going to make you implement the plan, but we are going to make you do one--all the way up to the amendment that we are debating and on which we are going to have a vote tomorrow which is to cut and run.

That is the variety of message amendments that we have pending on this bill, and none of those is the right message. Look at the consequences. Look at the consequences if we leave without making sure Iraq is stable.

Today, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense announced there is going to be a rejuvenation of the talks that include all the people in the region. That is so important. This is something I have talked about for a long time. No longer can the neighbors to Iraq sit back and watch what is happening there and criticize America or anybody else and not take a hand in helping to solve the problems in this area. No longer can they sit back and grade America when it is they who have the very most at stake with an Iraq that might become a haven for terrorists. That is in no one's interest in that region, not even people who want the destruction of America, such as the President of Iran. It is not in his interest or Iran's interest to have a terror stronghold in the Middle East. It is certainly not in the interest of the moderate Arab nations that are trying to have stabilization in that region.

Here we are with a new strategy that is in the process of being implemented, and we have the Senate debating whether to set a deadline and leave, regardless of what has happened on the ground.

This does three bad things. No. 1, it dishonors those who have already died or been maimed. I met people today. I have met people at Brook Army Medical Center in San Antonio who have been maimed. I have met with the loved ones of people who have been lost in this war already. If we cut and run, it is akin to saying there wasn't an underlying cause for which they died. That is not true. There is an underlying cause. It is a fight for freedom every bit as much as any war which we have ever fought because if we let a caliphate take over the Middle East, we are not going to live in freedom. That is the purpose the terrorists have, and we cannot let them succeed. We cannot dishonor those who have died for this cause.

No. 2, it puts every one of our troops who have boots on the ground today in Iraq and Afghanistan in harm's way that is a much greater harm than they face in the war itself. It puts a bull's-eye on them because the enemy knows they are leaving, so why not do worse things to our troops, why not get rid of them? That has happened before in retreats in wars.

That would be the worst thing we could do, is to say to the enemy: This is when we are leaving, this is when we are going to draw down, this is when the troops go away. I cannot imagine we would do such a thing.

And No. 3--and this is the policy that the Senate must stand for, and that is to stand for the integrity of America, the integrity of the greatest country on Earth--that we will be a formidable enemy and a reliable ally, that we will not flinch when times get tough. It is a legitimate argument about why we got here or when we should have had more troops or how the war has been run up to now. That is legitimate. We can talk about that, and it is a legitimate area to debate. But what is not legitimate is--because it is a very tough time--that we would say times are too tough; America must leave. What kind of honor would that bring on our country and this United States Senate? None. It would not bring honor on this country to cut and run because times are tough.

This is a fight for freedom. This is a fight to live in peace and harmony with people of different backgrounds and different faiths. This is taking a stand for freedom because America is the country that has the commitment and the capacity to fight for freedom in the world.

If we cut and run because times are tough, who would stand for freedom? Who would have the capability to stand for freedom?

It would be unthinkable to go against the general who is in charge in Iraq, the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, who has said also that ``if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely it would become a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the one al-Qaida had in Afghanistan.'' We would be going against one of the wisest Secretaries of State we have ever had in our history, Henry Kissinger, who said:

Whatever our domestic timetables, the collapse of the

American effort in Iraq would be a geopolitical calamity.

It would go against the wisdom of wars all the way back to the beginning.

During the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant, who did lead the Union forces to victory, said:

Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which

his Nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong,

occupies no enviable place in life or history.

Mr. President, this is not a new concept. This is a concept that has been tested time and time and time again, and retreating without honor is not an option for the greatest country on earth.

I hope the Senate will not look at the election next year or the political whims, even though I know they are strong, and I know sometimes it is

tough to stand up and do what is right for the long term when the short term is very tough. But this is the Senate. We are the elected leaders of the States of our country. And they look to us for leadership. We cannot do less. Any of these amendments that are message amendments that will never become law, and we know it, are an undercutting of our troops when they have boots on the ground.

No matter how sincere the effort of all the authors of these amendments are, and I know they are sincere, I know they are looking for a way to send that right message, there is no message in these amendments that can be right for our country. It is very simple and very clear. We are the United States of America, and the world expects our country to lead, to be strong, to be unwavering, and to be as good as our military, which everyone acknowledges is the best in the world. I just hope the Senate can meet that test.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the life of Lady Bird Johnson. She was one of the most beloved First Ladies in our Nation's history.

Lady Bird Johnson represented the best of Texas and the best of America. Since the days that I attended the University of Texas with her daughter Lynda, I have known and admired Lady Bird Johnson. I knew her as a woman of dignity, kindness, and graciousness.

Through the years, I have also come to know Luci, one of the most thoughtful people I have ever met. And, of course, most of us in the Senate know Lynda and her husband Chuck Robb, a former Senator from Virginia.

Claudia Alta Taylor Johnson was a Texas original. She was born in Karnack, TX, on December 22, 1912. During her infancy, a nursemaid commented, ``She's as pretty as a ladybird,'' and that nickname virtually replaced her given name of Claudia Alta for the rest of her life.

Lady Bird graduated from Marshall High School in Marshall, TX, studied journalism and art at St. Mary's Episcopal School for Girls, and graduated from the University of Texas.

In 1934, she married Lyndon Baines Johnson, another young, smalltown Texan, who would go on to serve our State in the U.S. House and Senate and then our country as Vice President and later as President of the United States.

In her role as First Lady, Lady Bird shared her love of the outdoors with the American people, becoming the strongest advocate for improving our public spaces. She was instrumental in promoting the Highway Beautification Act, which enhanced the Nation's highway system by limiting billboards and planting roadside areas. I will never pass wildflowers on a median of a highway without thinking of her. She was also a champion of the Head Start Program.

Even after her husband left office in 1969, she remained active in public life and especially in Texas. She served on the University of Texas board of regents. On December 22, 1982--her 70th birthday--she and Helen Hayes founded the National Wildflower Research Center, a nonprofit organization devoted to preserving and reintroducing native plants in planned landscapes at the University of Texas. In 1998, that center was officially renamed the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center.

As the U.S. Senator from Lady Bird's home State, I have consistently worked to strengthen and promote her outstanding legacy. Over the years, I have worked to preserve the LBJ office

in the Jake Pickle Building in Austin and to add the Lady Bird Johnson Plaza to the LBJ Library.

In the fall of 2006, Lady Bird joined me at a groundbreaking ceremony for the new plaza. She was radiant that day. The renovation is still in progress and has now been scheduled to finish by August of 2008--just in time for what would have been Lyndon's 100th birthday. The plaza will be graced by wildflowers which will serve as a tribute to Lady Bird's love of nature. Each wildflower will represent the lifework of a beautiful woman who will always have a special place in the hearts of the people who knew her.

I am proud, as a Texan, that this Texas lady represented the best of our Nation. My thoughts and prayers are with Lady Bird's family-- especially her daughters Lynda and Luci. We all mourn her passing, but we should also celebrate this remarkable woman's life.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Lone Star Fugitive Task Force, LSFTF, for its exemplary service to the Western District of Texas. The LSFTF, which commenced its work in May of 2005, is the principal law enforcement agency responsible for fugitive enforcement in the Western District of Texas. Sponsored by the prestigious U.S. Marshals Service, the LSFTF maintains offices in Alpine, Austin, Del Rio, El Paso, Midland, Pecos, San Antonio, and Waco. Bringing both local and Federal fugitives to justice, the task force continues to serve the public through its unrelenting hard work.

Although the LSFTF has only been in existence for 2 years, it led the Nation in arrests in 2006 and has been recognized as one of the most effective fugitive task forces in the United States. Garnering acclaim across the Nation, the task force has not only protected the citizens of the Texas localities in which it is based but has also helped construct a safer nation as a whole.

The Lone Star Fugitive Task Force's perpetual success in capturing perilous fugitives stems in part from its innovative officer instruction and groundbreaking education in modern fugitive hunting techniques.

Realizing the value of its proximity to the Mexican border, the LSFTF frequently works in tandem with Mexican law enforcement officials in order to promote international security. The organization has earned a stellar reputation among surrounding districts and across international borders for its reliability in dealing with fugitives fleeing across national boundary lines into Mexico.

In April 2006, the resolute task force played an instrumental role in leading Operation FALCON II, a 7-day collaborative effort between law enforcement agencies across the Western United States. The operation was immeasurably successful in apprehending thousands of fugitives, including hundreds which were being sought out for sexual offenses.

In response to its sustained track record of excellence, the Lone Star Fugitive Task Force was selected to host, in September 2006, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's, NCMEC, national pilot training program, made possible by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed earlier that year. Under the guidance of the LSFTF, the program's agenda focused on the improvement of vital skills for U.S. marshals to gain a better understanding of the motives and patterns of sexual offenders. Such an ambitious plan has aided the U.S. Marshal Service in their success in detaining this dangerous variety of criminal.

From its own pioneering methods to its cooperative efforts and rigid style of law enforcement, the LSFTF has made a positive impact on the communities it serves and continues to set a shining example for law enforcement agencies across the country. By doing so, the organization has, in its own modest way, assisted in ensuring the freedom and well- being of Americans across the country.

For these reasons, among many others, I would like to recognize the Lone Star Fugitive Task Force for its tremendous success. By bringing hazardous fugitives to justice and striving to improve the security of the general public, the LSFTF successfully works for the betterment of the communities and the Nation it humbly serves.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his remarks.

This is a hard time. This has been a very difficult issue. There is no question that so many people put hours and hours in to try to produce a piece of legislation that could get a majority or 60 votes to proceed. I think it is important for us to take a moment and say, yes, it was a disappointment, but we must go forward. This should not be the end of efforts to deal with one of the most important, if not the most important, domestic problem in our country today; that is, we are a sovereign nation which must have secure borders.

We know there are terrorists who are trying to enter our country to harm Americans. We would be naive to look the other way. We know there are drug cartels trying to enter our country with illegal drugs. We know there are human traffickers who are bringing people into our country illegally and robbing these people of huge amounts of extorted money. We know we must stop that.

We also know there is a need in this country for work and jobs that are not being filled by Americans, and we must provide a legal way for people to fill those jobs. We must not equate the people who have come here for jobs, trying to feed their families--because they have little hope from their country of origin of being able to do that--with terrorists and drug dealers. They are two separate kinds of problems and separate kinds of people. We need to provide an avenue for those who are trying to do better for themselves and their families to work in our country and to be in our country and, within the laws we have, to go into permanent residency and citizenship.

We do have a crisis, and it is our responsibility to meet it. Just because this effort failed does not mean we didn't make progress. I think we did make progress. It was not enough to get the majority even of this Senate to agree that this not only took care of the problems of today but would provide a standard for tomorrow and 10 years from now so that everyone would know what the laws are and that the laws would be enforced. So we have made progress.

I look at so many of our colleagues who worked so hard on this, along with members of the President's Cabinet and the President himself, and I know how deeply disappointed they are that this was not successful. Nevertheless, I believe we were in a much better place this year than we were last year, and I believe, if we start fresh, we can come up with a better approach to this problem.

What would a better approach be?

First, I think it is clear the American people do not believe there is a commitment to border security. I believe there is much more progress in this area than is known. We know the catch-and-release program is virtually shut down. It used to be that an alien coming into our country illegally who was not from Mexico but was from farther down in Central or South America would not be able to be apprehended and deported because there were no detention facilities that could hold them, so they were caught and released. Today, that program has been virtually shut off.

So we have made progress. Is it enough? Absolutely not. But we must have a renewed commitment to border security, and I think it is clear the American people believe we must show there is a commitment as a prerequisite to addressing the other problems.

Today, I suggest we might look at a fresh approach which has the commitment that was made by the President 2 weeks ago to border security, the money commitment for the barriers, and the commitment to following through on those border security measures. That would be one step we could take that I believe would have universal agreement. There is no one who has called me about this bill who has not said the absolute first requirement is border security.

The second thing I think we should do as we are continuing this commitment to border security is a guest worker program--a guest worker program going forward that is a workable way for people to come into this country and have the ability to work out in the open, legally, to be able to go back and forth from their home country without being afraid they could not get back in, and a tamperproof identification for employers to easily be able to see that a person is legally in this country.

I met with my good friend Massey Villarreal yesterday, and he said: Where is the help for the small businesses that may not even be computerized?

I said: I know the Department of Homeland Security, when the regulations are made, will have a provision for a business that has one employee or two to be able to have a clear, easy way to verify with this tamperproof ID. There would be a picture on it and a biometric indication.

So I think we need to work on the guest worker program immediately, along with the border security program, so that the economy of this country and the people who are seeking to work in our country to provide for their families wherever they may live would be able to be matched. I think we should do those two things first. That would be my suggestion of a new approach.

The problem we ran into with this bill and the bill we tried to pass last year was that tough issue of, what you do with the people who are already here illegally, because the enforcement was not done. A blind eye was turned. Through many years, since 1986, there has not been that workable guest worker program which would accommodate the economic needs of our country and the economic needs of workers who cannot find jobs in their own home countries. Dealing with that was the hangup on this bill, make no mistake about it. It was the perception that people would be able to come here, stay in our country illegally, and never have to go home in order to become legally processed in our country. The American people rose up and said no. My amendment which tried to fix that came very close--53 to 45.

I think that is a concept we should revisit but not until we have addressed border security and made a commitment and significant improvements and a guest worker program established for people coming in legally. In my opinion, that would probably also cause some of the people who are here illegally to see a clear path, a workable path, a dependable path to come into our country and begin to work legally if we act now to set up that guest worker program. Then start the long and arduous process of trying to handle responsibly the people who are here illegally, some of whom have homes, have American-born children, which we must realistically address but maybe not all at once. That would be my suggestion for those who are willing to say: Let's take a week, and let's determine what the next course should be.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Let me end by saying I do believe we need to take some time. We need to look at the consequences of doing nothing, which I do not think people focus on enough, and try to have a fresh approach, perhaps a more graduated approach, that would

secure our borders and would have a guest worker program going forward and then follow up by dealing with the illegals who are in our country now. Perhaps there would even be a safe harbor--no commitments about what would happen but not to cause people to lose jobs that are not being filled.

Perhaps, there could be something along that line as we decide how to deal with those people who are here. I do believe there will be more acceptance of a responsible, legalization process of people who are here illegally if the American people see border security and a guest worker program that puts the people in the front of the line who have come legally into our country to work.

Mr. President, it is so important that we not give up. It is so important that we not turn another blind eye to the problem facing this country of more and more illegal aliens coming in. We must secure our borders from terrorists, drug dealers, and human traffickers. But it is not the same as people who are coming to our country for economic help for themselves and their families. We must provide a way to attract those people to jobs that are not being filled by Americans. So, yes, it is disappointing today.

I applaud the people who have worked so hard. I want to say that they did make progress, and it is something from which we can all learn and do better as we move forward. But, mostly, we cannot shirk the responsibility of our United States Senate and our United States Congress, working with the President, to do the right thing for our country.

I yield the floor.