Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2007, which would repeal Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.

Last year, Congress answered Americans' calls for tax relief when it passed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The lower taxes on capital gains and dividends--and the higher alternative minimum tax exemption amounts--contained in the legislation assisted small businesses, encouraged the kind of investment that creates jobs and makes our economy grow, and ensured fairer tax treatment for middle-income families who would otherwise be left picking up the bill for a tax intended for the wealthy.

Alongside these essential tax relief provisions, however, conferees quietly inserted Section 511, a last-minute $7 billion tax penalty on government contractors, into the bill. Thus, the bill, whose aim was ``tax increase prevention,'' actually raised taxes. On the same day the President signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act into law, I introduced the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006 and made good on my promise to work to repeal Section 511. Today, I am renewing that promise.

Section 511--the largest revenue-raiser by far in the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act--imposes a sweeping new 3 percent tax withholding on all government payments for products and services made by the Federal Government, State governments, and local governments with expenditures of $100 million or more. It affects payments for goods and services under government contracts and payments to any person for a service or product provided to a government entity--for example, Medicare and certain grants--beginning in 2011.

Section 511 will not close the tax gap--or the difference between what American taxpayers owe and what they actually pay--as proponents of the provision argue. Section 511 is estimated to ``increase'' revenue by $7 billion from 2011 to 2015, but raises $6 billion of that amount due solely to accelerated tax receipts and not an actual revenue increase from tax compliance. It generates only $215 million in 2012 and increases slightly in each of the three years thereafter hardly the $290 billion annual tax gap the IRS estimates. Further, Section 511 is based on revenues from government payments with no relationship to a company's taxable income or tax liability. Section 511 hurts honest taxpaying businesses without providing any additional enforcement mechanisms for tax delinquents.

Section 511's costs to businesses are substantial. Although proponents of Section 511 call the 3 percent withholding rate ``low'' and ``conservative,'' in most cases, businesses make substantially less than 3 percent profit on their contracts and sometimes, turn no profit at all. Section 511 will effectively withhold entire paychecks-- interest free--thereby impeding the cash

flow of small businesses, eliminating funds that can be used for reinvestment in the business, and forcing companies to pass on the added costs to customers or finance the additional amount.

Section 511 will also impose significant administrative costs on the Federal, State, and local governments--costs so high, in fact, that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the provision constitutes an unfunded mandate on the state and local governments. The projected costs of Section 511, says CBO, will far exceed the allowable $50 million annual threshold.

More than the costs to government, though, Section 511 stands to negatively impact nearly every sector of the economy--from health care and technology to building and transportation--and there is already talk of expanding the provision's reach and accelerating its effective date. What there wasn't talk of, though--at the inception of Section 511--was the provision itself. Congress never debated the merits of an expanded withholding requirement--as a revenue-raiser or as a way to narrow the tax gap--in a committee or on either chamber's floor. If it had, Congress would have realized that it does neither of these things well. Section 511 is the start of years of bad tax policy. We can do better than this, and I urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal this unfair tax penalty.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a one year only reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act.

For the last six years, this Act has provided critical funding to our rural schools and counties and has built collaboration on the ground through the accomplishments of the Resource Advisory Committees.

Unfortunately Congress has not been able to reauthorize P.L. 106-393 and I do not feel the schools and counties should become victims while we in Congress negotiate a path forward.

Thus, I am introducing this bill today and will work to include it in any legislation that is being considered by the Senate.

The Act has been an enormous success in achieving and even surpassing the goals of Congress. This Act has restored programs for students in rural schools and prevented the closure of numerous isolated rural schools. It has been a primary funding mechanism to provide rural school students with educational opportunities comparable to suburban and urban students. Over 4,400 rural schools receive funds because of this Act.

Next, the Act has allowed rural county road districts and county road departments to address the severe maintenance backlog. Snow removal has been restored for citizens, tourists, and school buses. Bridges have been upgraded and replaced and culverts that are hazardous to fish passage have been upgraded and replaced.

In addition, over 70 Resource Advisory Committees, or RACs have been formed. These RAC's cover our largest 150 forest counties. Nationally these 15-person diverse RAC stakeholder committees have studied and approved over 2,500 projects on Federal forestlands and adjacent public and private lands. These projects have addressed a wide variety of improvements drastically needed on our National Forests. Projects have included fuels reduction, habitat improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance and rehabilitation, reforestation, campground and trail improvement, and noxious weed eradication.

The accomplishments of this Act over the last few years are positive and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to benefit the forest counties, their schools, and continue to contribute to improving the health of our National Forests.

If we do not work to reauthorize this Act, all of the progress of the last six years will be lost. Schools in timber dependant communities will lose a substantial part of their funding. These school districts will have to start making tough budget decisions such as keeping or canceling after school programs, sports programs, music programs, and trying to determine what is the basic educational needs of our children. Next, counties will have to reprioritize road maintenance so that only the essential services of the county are met because that is all they will be able to afford.

We have several on our side. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Madam President, under a unanimous consent request, I have asked for 5 minutes. I will use one of those and yield the remaining 4 to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement by the American Legion, the largest veterans organization in this country. I will only quote its last paragraph:

The American Legion and the American people find this to be

a totally unacceptable approach and we will do everything

within our power to ensure that our troops are not used as

political pawns by a Congress that lacks the will to win.

I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am so honored to be on the floor with Senator Joe Lieberman today and to listen to his remarks, frankly, to stand in the shadow of his leadership on this issue because he has been that, a bipartisan leader, recognizing, as he so appropriately has spoken, the leadership role that a Congress should take at this time in our Nation's history. And he has said it well. It is not one of micromanagement. It is not one of 535 generals all thinking we can act and think strategically about the engagement currently underway in Baghdad.

It is our job, I would hope, to stand united in behalf of the men and women we send there in uniform to accomplish what we so hope and wish they will be able to accomplish, and that is the stability of Iraq, the allowing of the Iraqi people to once again lead their country and to take from it the kind of radical Islamic fascism that is well underway and dominating the region.

Let me make a few comments this afternoon that clearly coincide with what Senator Lieberman has spoken to. This is not, nor should it ever become, a partisan issue. I think his presence on the floor this afternoon speaks volumes to that. This is not a partisan issue. This is a phenomenally important national and international issue for our country to be engaged in that, frankly, few countries can engage in the way we have and with the kind of energy and strength we have brought to it.

The majority leader has put us in a very precarious situation, one that is clearly divisive. Frankly, I can say things as a Republican that maybe my colleague cannot say.

I will be relatively brief. I was instructed to be here at 1:15, but I think we have had a runover of time; is that not correct?

Can we inquire of the Chair?

His time is?

May I ask the Senator how much time he planned to consume?

I will take no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I am so honored to be on the floor with Senator Joe Lieberman today and listen to his remarks, and frankly, to stand in the shadow of his leadership on this issue. Because he has been that, a bipartisan leader recognizing, as he so appropriately has spoke, the leadership role that a Congress should take at this time in our Nation's history. And he has said it well, it is not one of micromanagement, it is not 1 of 535 generals all thinking we can act strategically and tactically about the engagement currently underway in Baghdad and elsewhere across Iraq.

It is our job, I would hope, to stand united in behalf of the men and women we send there in uniform to accomplish what we so hope and wish they will be able to accomplish and that is the stability of Iraq and the greater Middle East and allowing the Iraqi people to lead their country and remove from it the kind of radical Islamic fascism that is well underway and dominating the region.

Let me make a few comments this afternoon that clearly coincide with what Senator Lieberman spoke to. This is not, nor should it ever become, a partisan issue and I think Senator Lieberman's presence on the floor this afternoon speaks volumes to just that, that this is not a partisan issue. This is a phenomenally important national and international issue for our country to be engaged in. Frankly, few countries can engage in this struggle in that way we have, and with the kind of energy and strength that we have brought to it.

The majority leader has put us in a very precarious situation, one that is clearly divisive. Frankly, I can say things as a Republican that maybe my colleague cannot say. I believe that the majority leader is playing politics on the issue of calling up a nonbinding resolution, while blocking the minority from calling up a different resolution. My good friend Senator Gregg has introduced a bill, a bill that I have cosponsored, that would express our full support for our soldiers in harms way and give them a much needed guarantee that they will continue to receive the funding they need to continue to function in their critical mission. As I said, the majority leader refuses to allow us a vote on this bill, and I think that is plain wrong.

Let me make it very clear, it is not the Republicans stalling or shutting down debate on the issue of Iraq. In fact, it is just the opposite. I have spoken twice in the last 2 weeks about this issue because I believe it is very critical, both to my constituency in Idaho, but also to our great Nation and the world. The majority claims that they want full and fair debate on this issue, yet they refuse to allow us to bring our own voice to this issue, and our own resolutions. How can we have a full and fair debate and vote on the floor of the Senate if we are being held hostage by the majority leader?

No State goes untouched by what we do here today and no man or woman in uniform goes untouched. Twenty Idahoans have given their lives in Iraq, and each of their sacrifices is sacred and honored, not just by their families and friend but by all. Most recently, SPC Ross Clevenger and PVT Raymond Werner of Boise, and SGT James Holtom of Rexberg were killed in Iraq in an IED attack. They, like all those who have fallen to enemy hands, served in a heroic and gallant way for a cause they believed in and a cause that we believe in. That is the cause of freedom.

Senator Lieberman said it well, for us to send one of our top generals and top military minds in GEN David Petraeus to Iraq and say by a unanimous vote that we support him and believe in his abilities, but at the same time we do not support his mission, what are we saying as a Congress? What kind of message are we sending to our men and women in uniform when we speak in that manner? I think it is wrong to send this message and I will vigorously oppose that message.

If the majority leader and his Democratic colleagues believe so strongly that our mission in Iraq is so flawed, then why do we not see them bringing to the floor a bill to cut off funding for our troops on the ground in Iraq? As I mentioned earlier, the answer to that is a political answer, not a substance issue. Many Democrats have already called for cutting off funding and demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, yet we have not seen those bills being taken up on the floor of either chamber. However, there are rumors that Members will choose to use the upcoming Iraq supplemental funding bill to force the President to take the advice of these congressional generals, rather than using the advice of our military experts and commanders to execute our mission and secure Iraq.

The reason I do not support such an immediate withdrawal of our troops, or cutting funding off for our troops in gun fights right now in the streets of Baghdad, is simple. I believe in our mission and I believe that our soldiers are the most capable in the world. The only enemy that can defeat American soldiers on the battlefield is the low morale of the American people. A resolution condemning their actions and their mission in Iraq is just the kind of defeat that could embolden our enemies and harm our soldiers.

As every one of my colleagues knows, the reinforcements we are debating are already in motion. In fact, the President's plan to stabilize Baghdad and Anbar Province are already showing signs of success. The Iraqi government is closing down their borders with Syria and Iran, a critical decision that will limit the number of foreign fighters and enemy weapons from entering Iraq, weapons that are being used to kill American soldiers.

Lastly, I would say that our presence in Iraq does not just affect Iraq. The greater Middle East and the security of world are at stake. Are we going to turn a blind eye to Iraq and allow it to become a safe haven for terrorists the way that Afghanistan was under the Taliban regime? I certainly will do all that I can as a U.S. Senator to prevent that from happening because it is in our national interests to defeat our enemies abroad before they can strike us again here at home.

Mr. President, let me speak to you briefly regarding another critical issue and that is the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Reauthorization Act.

When we return after our Presidents Day recess, it is vital we re- engage in a critical issue for timber dependent school districts in Idaho and across our country. This bill once referred to as Craig/ Wyden, helped many rural school districts move through a difficult time in their history and school children now find themselves in a very difficult situation. As you may know, many rural schools in this country have funding tied directly to timber harvest from our public lands. For several reasons, we haven't harvested timber at our historical rate and our rural schools in those particular counties have suffered.

I am working in a bipartisan way with my colleagues from Montana, Oregon, Washington, California, New Mexico and of course Idaho. We all see the importance of continuing this funding to some extent. I am committed, as is Senator Wyden, to ensuring the success of the bill that bears our name.

It is my intent, as well as others, to redefine the formula. Our key dates to shape this critical issue are the Energy and Natural Resources hearing scheduled for March 1; as well as the emergency appropriations supplemental debate tentatively scheduled for the middle of March.

The timing is at a critical point. Our timber-dependent county officials and school districts are wrestling with budgets that are tied to this funding. I say today, clearly, failure is not an option.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am proud to rise in support of the confirmation of Norman Randy Smith to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

There is no question about Randy Smith's credentials or competence for this position. He has been a State district judge in Idaho's Sixth Judicial District for a decade. He has served as a felony drug court judge and a pro tem justice on the Idaho Supreme Court and the Idaho Court of Appeals. He has a wealth of experience in both the practice and teaching of law, and he has been an active member of the bar association and other professional associations.

There is also no question about Judge Smith's character and fitness for this office. Randy Smith is deeply involved in his community and State, and he has held positions of leadership and responsibility in a wide variety of organizations. He is respected and well-liked by Republicans and Democrats alike throughout the State of Idaho.

He is a fine man--the kind of person you would want to have as a scout leader for your kids. He is a principled and knowledgeable community citizen--the kind of person you would want to have on your team or your board. He is a thoughtful, objective judge--the kind of judge you would trust to render an impartial and well-reasoned decision.

Men and women come to the bench by many different roads, including academia or elected public office. Randy Smith's real-world experience gives him a perspective and skill-set that will be extremely valuable on the appellate court. His character and competence fit him to advance to this important position, and Idahoans are confident that he would be a tremendous asset to our region, and the Nation, as a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Senator from Colorado is going to speak a little longer, but he has agreed I can interject myself but for a moment.

Madam President, today is an essential day in my life. It is not just Valentines Day. It happens to be the anniversary of the first date I had with my wife Suzanne. Am I a romantic? Well, maybe just a little bit.

Little did I know then that one day we would be celebrating the first date as a married couple with three children and nine grandchildren.

Over the years, I have taken to the Senate to announce the news of our growing family and I ask my colleagues' indulgence again today to send a special valentine to the two most recent additions to our family.

Born November 20 of 2004, a beautiful granddaughter named Lily Terese Craig. On April 18 of 2006, another beautiful grandchild, Damon Oliver Craig, was born into our family. It is a thrill to be a granddad to these wonderful children. It has been a great joy to hold them, to love them, to see them around, and to watch them grow.

My wife Suzanne and I look forward to many happy experiences with Lily and Damon and the rest of our crew. Often we come to the Senate to talk about momentous and meaningful events, but there is no more important event than when grandchildren enter our lives.

Let me thank my colleagues. Let me thank my colleague from Colorado for letting me share with all how much we enjoy these new lives in our family on this Valentines Day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in the State of Idaho. My State has experienced unprecedented growth in recent years. That growth, coupled with years of drought, has created a serious need for additional water storage. Of course, the first step in developing additional storage is the feasibility process.

This bill provides the consent needed for the Secretary to conduct further studies of the projects that are currently underway in the State of Idaho that will help to alleviate water shortages in three of our river basins. This bill authorizes $3,000,000 to be used for the continuation of these studies.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly move this much-needed bill through the legislative process.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in the State of Idaho. My State has experienced unprecedented growth in recent years. That growth, coupled with years of drought, has created a serious need for additional water storage. Of course, the first step in developing additional storage is the feasibility process.

This bill provides the consent needed for the Secretary to conduct further studies of the projects that are currently underway in the State of Idaho that will help to alleviate water shortages in three of our river basins. This bill authorizes $3,000,000 to be used for the continuation of these studies.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly move this much-needed bill through the legislative process.

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

Madam President, I have been on the floor of the Senate for the last half hour, listening to my colleague in what is, in fact, a very important debate for this country. I say that, even though the wringing of hands would suggest that somehow the debate is being blocked and the will of the Senate has been thwarted. I suggest quite the opposite. It has become a finger-pointing in a procedural way.

I believe the Republican leader came to the floor yesterday and said let's have a couple of votes, several votes; you can vote up or down on the Levin-Warner resolution; you can vote up or down on the Gregg resolution. It was then the leadership on the majority side, the Democratic side, blocked it. I think the American people are wise to the tactics at hand. They are not unaware, and they are frustrated by what is going on in Iraq today. Clearly, we are focused. Whether it is the Congress of the United States or a vast majority of the American people, we are becoming increasingly critical of a war that has frustrated many of us.

The Senator from Maryland voted against it. He said so a few moments ago. I voted for it. At the same time, I grow increasingly critical, as do many of the citizens of my State, as to what will be the future, what will be our success and/or failure and at a cost of how many more American lives.

I am critically concerned that this Government in Iraq now stand up. We have allowed them to form and to shape and to vote. They now have a Constitution. They now must lead. In leading, I hope it could be to stability to the region and that it will not offset and throw out of balance what the free world looks at and says is very important and that is, of course, the war on terror and the general stability of the Middle East.

Indeed, I think much has been lost in the debate around this country as to the significance of the Middle East itself. I was extremely pleased last week when that kind of an elder statesman of our country, Henry Kissinger, came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in a very real and important way, and in a bipartisan way, said: Let's not forget our perspective. While for the short term and for the moment we are focused on Iraq, as we should be, let's not fail to recognize that since World War II, we have been in the Middle East to bring stability to the region for a safer, more stable Western World.

I don't think there is any question about that. He was frank about it when he stressed diplomacy as an important tool. I have long advocated frank, open talks amongst our friends and neighbors around the world, not only about the region but about the role of Iraq within the region and what we must do. However, Dr. Kissinger also stressed that, under the present conditions in Iraq, withdrawal or the signs of withdrawal is simply not an option for America's forces. So anyone who comes to the floor today and says: Oh, but it is an option and we ought to start now, or we ought to send all the signals to our friends and neighbors around the world that we are beginning to pull back, is going against a trend that I think is critically important. They could set in motion the kind of activity in Iraq that could bring about a phenomenal genocide and the possibility of neighbors tumbling in on top of neighbors to create conflict in the Middle East that could bring down the whole of the region. If that were to happen, then I am quite confident that those who want to withdraw would find themselves in a very precarious situation. What do we do? Do we go back in with greater force to stabilize the region, when friendly, moderate Arab nations are now tumbling into war because we would no longer stand or we would no longer force, through a diplomatic process, those countries of the world to come together to work with us, to cooperate?

While most agree that the current situation in Iraq must be dealt with politically--and we have heard that time and again--and economically, our military involvement is critical to provide the Iraqis the stability they need in this new democratic process. I don't mind pegging timelines a little bit and I don't mind thresholds and measurements and I think it is important we not only send that message but that we get it done, we get it done for the sake of our position in Iraq and certainly forcing the Iraqi Government to move--those are all phenomenally important issues.

Let me stress two last facts. It is quite simple. The 116th from Idaho, the largest deployment of Idaho's troops in this war, was there and served and served honorably and proudly and the work they did was phenomenally important and we are proud of them. Let me also suggest that while many will say the general we now send to Iraq is the best military mind we have available at the moment, the author of the

Army's war handbook on terror, we are saying to General Petraeus: You are the best there is, go forth and be successful, but, oh, by the way, we don't agree with the mission--what kind of a mixed message is that we now send to our military?

The Senator from Georgia was right. The world is listening to this debate. Our men and women in uniform are listening to this debate. The enemies of the cause are listening and saying: Oh, the Senate of the United States is getting cold feet. Our opportunities are at hand. All we have to do is wait them out. All we have to do is accelerate the violence, and they will turn out the lights in the green zone and go home.

Then the world, at least the Iraqi world, will erupt in a civil conflict, a civil war of phenomenal proportion.

Those are the realities we deal with today. I hope this Senate stays on point. This is an issue that is critical to the future of our country, to the future of the free world, to the region of the Middle East, to any kind of stability we hope could be brought there. I hope we have the votes--and they ought to be up or down--and I don't mind being on the record at all. They need to be substantive, they need to have the force and effect of law, just not the ring of the politics of the Chamber, because that is what we are getting today--a heavy dose of politics and very little substance.

We hide behind procedure? I don't think so. Let us bring these issues forward. The Craig resolution? Up or down. Levin-Warner? Up or down. What is wrong with those votes? That is what we were sent here to do. I would hope our leadership could bring us to that.

So, to reiterate:

Many people around the country, including myself, have taken a much more critical look at the way the war in Iraq has been handled. However, through all the hardships our soldiers face day-to-day on the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, it still remains evident to me that our success in Iraq and the success of the current Iraq government, is critical to the security of our Nation, the stability of the Middle East, and the fight against terrorism worldwide.

Indeed, much has been lost in the debates around this country as to the significance of the greater Middle East stability when looking at the situation in Iraq. Our country has maintained a presence in that region of the world since World War II, and it should not be a surprise to anyone that many countries there depend and rely on our presence there, both economically and for their own national security. After reviewing the recent transcript of Dr. Henry Kissinger before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I agreed with many of Dr. Kissinger's views on the current situation in Iraq as it relates to the Middle East as a whole, and the severe consequences the international community will face should we fail in Iraq.

Dr. Kissinger stressed diplomacy, something I have long advocated in this conflict and frankly for any conflict. I don't believe there is one Member of Congress who takes the decision lightly to send out troops into combat unless we all firmly believe it is a last option. I know I certainly didn't, and I know that an overwhelming majority of both Senators and Congressmen believed that as well when we authorized the use of force in Iraq back in 2002.

However, Dr. Kissinger also stressed that under the present conditions in Iraq, withdrawal is not an option for American forces. Such a withdrawal would have long reaching consequences on the war on terror worldwide, could lead to widespread genocide in Iraq and possible neighboring countries, as well as severe economic consequences for all Middle Eastern countries. It is clear that such a circumstance would mandate international forces be sent back into Iraq, but the costs at that point would be grave.

While most agree that the current situation in Iraq must be dealt with politically and economically, our military involvement is critical to providing the Iraqis the stability they need to let their new democracy take root. If we pull our troops out of Iraq now, or deny them much needed reinforcements as some would like to do, we risk losing Baghdad and possibly the entire country to full blown civil war. Under those circumstances, the government of Iraq would fall, and Iran and Syria would strengthen their grip on the Middle East, endangering the national security of America and our allies worldwide.

It is my hope that diplomatic efforts will continue in a more aggressive fashion to bring the international community to the realization of a failed State in Iraq, and the real consequences that we all face should our efforts fall short of stabilizing Baghdad and the country as a whole. Because the consequences are so high, I do not believe that our soldiers' withdrawal from Iraq should be placed on any timetable, and we need to reassure our soldiers and commanders in Iraq that we will continue to support their efforts. After all, they are operating in Iraq, but the work they are doing will have a far reaching effect to stabilize the Middle East.

Over the past few weeks, there have been many who have been outspoken about their disapproval of the President's new plan for Iraq. Not being an expert in military tactics, I do not believe it is my role as a U.S. Senator to play general for our soldiers as some are. Instead, I believe it is my duty in Congress to provide our soldiers with the resources and funding they require to do their job with the best equipment possible, while also pledging my unending moral support for the work they do each and every day to keep Americans safe both at home and abroad.

Every 4 years the citizens of America go to the polls to elect a commander in chief, who is responsible to the American people to lead our military in times of peace and times of war. It is no mistake that the founding fathers gave the power to declare war to the Congress, but the power to lead the military to the President. Our soldiers should not have to follow 535 Congressional ``generals'' who hold up critical funding while they second-guess tactical decisions of the commander in chief and military leaders.

Over the last few weeks a lot has been made of the troop reinforcement President Bush outlined to the American people. Prior to his speech, I and several other Members of Congress met with the President to discuss the current situation in Iraq. I made it very clear that Idahoans and I cannot continue to support the status quo; and he agreed. President Bush has spent the last many months working with his national security advisers, commanding officers in Iraq, Members of Congress and experts in the field of military issues in order to revise our national strategy with regards to Iraq and come up with a new strategy for victory.

Make no mistake, the onus is now on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government to act, and I was extremely pleased to hear President Bush reiterate that fact. The efforts of our soldiers have given the Iraqi people a great opportunity to live in a free and stable country, but they must stand up and accept that responsibility.

My home State of Idaho has shared some of the burden of this war in Iraq. The 116th Brigade Combat Team served courageously for twelve months in Kirkuk and surrounding areas, and they have since returned home to their families. I had the opportunity to visit them in Iraq and was extremely proud of the feedback on these soldiers I received from Iraqi government officials, civilians, and U.S. military leaders. I would also like to spotlight all Idahoans who are serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I am eternally grateful for their service and I will continue to provide them with all the support I can give.

It is my hope that Members of Congress will not pursue antiwar politics to the detriment of our soldiers in the field. Our soldiers have been fighting courageously in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world to protect each and every American life, and I believe it is incumbent for the Congress to stand behind them. Numerous bills and resolutions have been proposed in the Senate to disapprove of their mission, cap troop levels, withhold funding for the reinforcements, or even completely de-fund the troops serving in Iraq. I cannot and will not support any legislation that I see as unproductive to our current efforts in Iraq, because I believe it places our forces in greater danger and could embolden our enemies to continue their attacks against innocent Iraqis, Americans and our allies.

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January of this

year, General Hayden, the Director of the CIA, responded to a question regarding what would happen if we pulled out now from Iraq. Director Hayden responded, Three very quick areas:

No. 1, more Iraqis die from the disorder inside Iraq. No.

2, Iraq becomes a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the

one Al Qaeda had in Afghanistan. And finally, No. 3, the

conflict in Iraq bleeds over into the neighborhood and

threatens serious regional instability.

He went on to state that this directly and immediately threatens the United States homeland because it:

provides Al Qaida that which they are attempting to seek in

several locations right now, be it Somalia, the tribal area

of Pakistan or Anbar province--a safe haven to rival that

which they had in Afghanistan.

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, GEN David Petraeus supported President Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Baghdad and Anbar province. In response to questioning before that committee, General Petraeus made it clear he believes that the reinforcement of soldiers into Baghdad and Anbar in Iraq will bolster the Iraqis' ability to stabilize their government and defeat the insurgency, instead of allowing them to continue to buck that responsibility, as some have asserted.

Many in Congress have stated publicly that this is the last chance the United States has to get it right in Iraq. If that is the case, I feel there is no general better qualified to be in charge of our ground forces and get things turned around on the ground than General Petraeus. I recognize that the American people have grown weary over the last months since the violence has escalated in Iraq, but I remain optimistic that the Iraqi government, with the aid of our soldiers, can turn things around.

I had the pleasure of meeting General Petraeus during one of my two trips to Iraq and was very impressed by his knowledge of the situation and his expertise in counterinsurgency. I have no doubt that General Petraeus is the right man to lead our forces in Iraq and I believe that he will overcome the new challenges he now faces. Let us not send the right man and then tell him it is the wrong job.

In closing, while I share the concerns of many of my colleagues regarding the situation in Iraq, I will support the President's plan to provide the reinforcements necessary to provide stability in Baghdad and Anbar province. I am hopeful that this plan will give the Iraqi government the best chance to stand on their own two feet and make the positive strides necessary to take control of the security situation and function as a stable government. It is this Senator's personal opinion that resolutions condemning the President's new way forward send the wrong message to our soldiers, the Iraqi people, and especially our enemies.

I certainly appreciate and support the role of Congress to provide oversight with respect to U.S. military engagements. However, I do not believe we should cripple the Commander in Chief's ability to work with our military leadership to defeat our enemies, and passing a resolution condemning the President's new plan for Iraq would do precisely that. Instead, I support resolutions that call for the support of the American people and Congress to give the President's plan a chance to work. Mistakes have been made, unquestionably, and the violence in Baghdad and Anbar province has grown to a level that few predicted, but I am not yet ready to throw in the towel on this President's new plan and our soldiers' ability to assist in stabilizing Iraq before they even get a chance to try.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me join with my colleagues on this issue in thanking the Senator from Georgia for withdrawing the amendment. It is possible to say that the concept of adverse wage is an anomaly unto itself, specific to the H-2A program. That is not to suggest it is right. It is to suggest that it was there and it ratcheted up on an automatic basis to establish the wage base for H-2A workers in the guest worker program.

The Senator from California is right. As we began to negotiate and create what is now known as AgJOBS, which she and I reintroduced earlier this year, in that was a back-off from the adverse wage and a holding of the line for a period of time to level out. What the Senator from Georgia is attempting to do is establish a new wage rate. I think the Senator from California is right; we are not sure where it would go or what it would mean.

I am going to stand here and say that is not to suggest a new wage rate is not the right way to go, to establish equity between H-2A and non-H-2A workers who are doing the same job in the field, or somewhere else in agriculture. But there ought to be a consistency. If we are going to bring large groups of guest workers in--and we will, we always have; there are certain types of work only they will do--then I think we have to be sensitive to the uniqueness of that situation.

But at the same time, it is important that we are sensitive to all of the other requirements we put upon the employer as a part of the total employment package. Is it housing? Certain other conditions along with the wage that they necessarily would not have to pay to a domestic worker who was doing comparable wage but was outside the H-2A program?

There is a disparity today. That is why we backed it off in the negotiations. H-2A workers, by their definition, were becoming noncompetitive. Of course, in the environment in which we were working, they were becoming noncompetitive to the illegal who was in the market. So you have disparity across the board. I don't dispute what the Senator from Georgia is attempting to do. I visited with some labor attorneys who found it very problematic. If you are going to do this, we ought to work collectively, review it appropriately, apply it against a variety of workforces to see that it is uniform and just for all employees and employers who may, because of their uniqueness, provide certain conditions for the worker that otherwise would not be necessary to provide.

I used to be in agriculture. We paid a certain wage. We provided a house and we provided fuel for the rig. We also provided certain grocery and food supplies. That was all viewed as a factor of employment with the employee. There are a variety of things we have to get correct. The Senator from California said it would have muddied the water a great deal. I think it would have frustrated it. I think it would have taken out part of the force that it is valuable that we keep together as we try to reform the H-2A program, deal with the problem we currently have to secure and stabilize a legal, transparent workforce for American agriculture, treat foreign nationals right who come here legally for the purpose of that kind of employment.

I don't know that this would have accomplished it. Withdrawing it, coming together with us, trying to resolve this problem I think offers us an opportunity to get our work done on this portion of immigration reform this year. I hope and I know the Senator from California agrees with me. I hope we can accomplish that by the end of the year.

I agree totally and I agree for all the reasons the Senator from California put forward--and a couple more. One of the things the Congress is committed to--both the Senators on the floor at this moment have voted for it--is to secure our Southwest border. We are investing heavily on that at this moment, and we should be. There is no question about that. We may argue about how many miles of fence, but we all recognize an unsecured border is a very problematic thing. It is closing. It is becoming secure and we are going to continue to invest in it. As we are doing that, all of these other problems are beginning to happen because that workforce is moving around and they are not staying with agriculture. The Senator lost a tremendous amount this year in the San Joaquin, in the greater agricultural area of California.

I spoke with young farmers and ranchers of the Idaho Farm Bureau this weekend. We have lost hundreds of millions--nowhere near what the Senator from California has lost, but we have a different kind of agriculture. The intensity of ours, the hand labor of ours is simply not as great as the Senator's. But there is a real problem and that problem is quite simple. If we don't get this corrected, we may well be looking at $5 billion worth of agricultural loss this year, and half of that or more will come from California alone, let alone all the other areas, and I may even be conservative in my guesstimate.

So the Senator is absolutely right. Now we are coupled with the natural weather disasters that have hit California and could hit my State at some time in the future. That is typical of agriculture. But, if we provide a stable and secure workforce that is legal, then we have helped our agriculture a great deal in knowing that when they do produce a crop, they have the people there to help them get it out of the field, get it to the processor and ultimately to the retail shelves of America.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I assume this starts this side's period of morning business, to be extended to what time?