Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the reauthorization of the TANF Supplemental Grant program. Today Senator Rockefeller and I introduced legislation that would reauthorize these grants and more accurately ensure that the dollars spent on this program are directed to poor children in the States that need it most.

I am committed to ensuring that Federal dollars spent on welfare services and benefits are spent efficiently and provided to our citizens in a way that encourages self-sufficiency. In South Carolina, I am pleased that our Department of Social Services continues to work toward that end. Currently, less than half of States' TANF block grants are spent on welfare checks, and the majority of funding is spent on moving welfare recipients into the workforce. More and more States are using TANF dollars to help beneficiaries purchase services such as childcare, transportation and job training.

However, the neediest States continue to struggle to provide welfare- to-work services to poor families with children. South Carolina can only afford to spend 29 percent of the national average per poor child on TANF services compared to some States that spend well over the national average. It is important that this discrepancy be addressed.

The TANF Supplemental Grant program was created in 1996 to provide additional assistance to States that spend less money per poor person on TANF services. However, many States, like South Carolina, spend well below the national average and do not qualify for this assistance. To date, South Carolina has the lowest spending per poor person of any State in the country that does not receive a supplemental grant. Many States that do receive supplemental grants spend more than twice the TANF funds per poor person than South Carolina.

The Supplemental Grant program will expire on September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing this program is an opportunity to provide assistance, based on updated statistics, to States, like South Carolina, that cannot afford to spend the national average per poor child on TANF services. Especially during economically challenging times, providing this assistance to States can help our neediest families with children to get back on their feet and back to work.

In working to pass this legislation, I look forward to collaborating with the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Rockefeller on identifying an appropriate mechanism to offset the costs of this proposal. I am hopeful that the Senate will consider this legislation in a timely manner.

Mr. President, I have a modification to the amendment, which I think has been cleared, that I would like to send to the desk.

Mr. President, I know we are all busy and trying to catch up on a lot of business, but in 1 minute this is what I am trying to do. This amendment is not about me, it is about a lot of people paying taxes, and their taxes are going to go up if we don't pass this amendment.

The Baucus amendment passed 99 to 1. That was good for America. We are filling in a gap that exists when it comes to the budget and protecting tax cuts. My amendment would extend through 2013 the marginal rate cuts that are now in law. The current law is 25 percent. If we don't pass my amendment, in 2011 the tax will go up to 28 percent, a 10-percent increase, 35 percent becomes 39.6 percent, and that means 23 million Americans are going to pay higher taxes.

The estate tax relief in this amendment would protect families and small businesses from losing, through estate taxes, their deductions and exemptions. It will keep the rate at 45 percent versus 50 percent.

The capital gains rate. Nine million people depend on capital gains to help support their family. The rates go up to 20 percent, if my amendment does not pass, versus 15.

Dividend tax rates are great for our economy. We lock in the dividend tax rate cuts we have achieved the last couple years. Twenty-four million people are affected.

Small business expensing. Under the current law, you get $250,000 under small business expensing. If my amendment doesn't pass, it goes to $25,000.

There is a lot at stake if you vote against my amendment.

Yes.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Madam President, consistent with the unanimous consent request, I will talk for 10 minutes

about the outline of this amendment. I, too, would like to recognize the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member for dealing with what I think is a very fruitful and important exercise in American democracy, and that is setting the budget. We are going to try to create a budget to guide the Federal Government not just this year but in coming years.

If I had to showcase a difference between honorable men and women in the Senate about our philosophies, how you think about the economy, showcase differences between people who are very sincere and all love their country, it would probably be this amendment. Senator Baucus's amendment--I will vote for that; it extends tax cuts to families, child tax credits. The details of the amendment will be discussed on the floor. Certainly, it is needed.

My amendment is about those tax cuts that will be left behind if we pass Senator Baucus's amendment and we let current law expire. This probably illustrates the difference between the parties as much as any other event that I could offer to the American people. We live in a global economy, and the question for America is this: What kind of tax structure do we need in place to make sure capital will be formed here and not leave? Does your Tax Code matter when it comes to creating jobs? Does the amount you take from a business--a small business or a major corporation--matter in terms of a global economy? Does it affect people's decision about where to do business? What is fair?

This idea of class warfare--that it is not fair to do this for one group if you are going to do something for the other group--would be a great debate to have. What I am trying to do is offer an amendment to complement Senator Baucus's, to make sure our tax structure in America is fair to those who work hard, who hire people, who create capital and jobs, to those in retired status who are depending on their investments earlier in life to get them through.

Here is the question for the country: Under the current law that we passed several years ago, which expires in 2010, the top tax rate is 35 percent. The question for America is: Is a 35-percent top tax rate at the Federal level fair? It seems to be a gracious plenty to me--35 percent out of whatever you earn going to the Federal Government as the top rate. Should it be more? Should it be less? Well, 35 percent, to me, is more than a gracious plenty to be sending to the Federal Government because most people have to pay taxes at other levels of government.

Now, in 2011, if we do nothing, the 35-percent rate goes to 39.6; the 33-percent rate goes to 36; the 28-percent rate goes to 31; and the 25- percent rate goes to 28.

If you ask a variety of Americans--and this has been true for 10, 15, 20 years--what is a fair amount for an American to pay to the Federal Government in terms of the income they earn, the No.1 answer is consistently 25 percent--regardless of income, region, rich, poor, black or white. Most Americans view 25 percent as a fair amount that somebody should have to pay to the Federal Government in terms of their income. We are now at 35 percent, and we are trying to hang on to that.

Our Democratic friends, by opposing this amendment, would allow the top rate to go to 39.6. But most importantly, it would allow the 25- percent rate for that class of taxpayers to go to 28. Who is at the 25- percent rate? It starts with income levels of $31,850 for single and $63,700 for married couples. In 2011, they would, at that rate--if my amendment is not passed--have to pay 28 percent.

That is a lot of money from the economy going to Washington, at a time when we need money at home for families and businesses. Small business owners are in the 35-percent rate in large numbers. Do we want to take every small business that is paying 35 percent of their income to the Federal Government and, 3 years from now, make it 39.6 percent? Numbers matter. To us, we are picking numbers. At home, it is the bottom line. I grew up in a small town in South Carolina, where my dad owned a liquor store, a restaurant, and a pool room. I can remember that we got by. Neither of my parents graduated high school. The one thing I can remember about small business life is you have no option not to get up and go to work. If you are dog sick, you still have to go to work because nobody will pay the bills if you don't open the door. We had health insurance basically for the four people in our family. My mother got Hodgkin's disease, and I paid those bills up through when I was in the Air Force. To the people out there making a living, the burdens of regulations matter.

I think we should come together and say something simple: 35 percent is enough to take from anybody. If you don't like rich people, if you think there is an amount of money that is too much to make, then that is one way to run the Government, I guess. That is one way to create a society--put a ceiling on what people can do. As long as you earn your money honestly and fairly, the better you do, the happier I am for you. If I take 35 percent of what you make, I think I have probably taken enough. Should I take 39.6 percent because somebody makes too much? If you let the Government do that, I think you are letting the Government get out of line and out of control.

And it is just not the people who make a lot of money whom I am worried about; it is people who are working for every dollar they can get to grow their business and pay the families' bills that I worry about.

As I said, the amendment I am trying to offer to the Senate will keep rates at 35, 33, 28 and 25 and not go to 39.6, 36, 31, and 28. If we don't pass this amendment, there is going to be a major tax increase coming to hard-working Americans out there, at a time when we live in a global economy; and if we take any more from Americans, a lot of our businesses are going to leave us. How many people are affected by my amendment? Twenty-eight million people will experience a tax increase by 2011 if this amendment doesn't pass.

Now, we have heard that two things are certain--death and taxes. The only thing I can tell you about taxes is that if you touch it, use it, put it in your car or eat it, in America it is taxed in some form. And then you die. Well, we have an estate tax law in America, and it goes kind of like this. The current law is you get a $2 million exemption for a couple at a 45-percent rate. If you have an estate over $2 million as a couple, the Government takes 45 percent of what is left. You have paid taxes on everything you have earned right before you died. Here comes the Government, after the $2 million exemption has been reached, and it takes 45 percent of what is left. That is current law. That is supposedly too good a deal. I don't think it is that great a deal.

In 2010, here is what happens if we do nothing: Instead of a $2 million exemption for a couple, it goes back to $1 million, and you get a 55-percent tax rate on everything else that is left. How many small businesses out there, on paper, have assets over $1 million or $2 million? How many farmers are land rich and cash poor? Is that good policy? One thing I can tell you for sure, being a former prosecutor, if we don't do something about this, there are going to be a lot of mysterious deaths on New Year's Eve 2010. Look at the consequences of dying one day versus the other. It is political malpractice for the Congress to put people in this bind, where estate tax rates go from 45 to 55 and the exemption is cut in half, based on dying one day versus the other. That is bad public policy. We need to fix it.

My amendment would say there would be a $5 million exemption for couples in this country and, after that, a top rate of 35 percent for the death tax. In other words, 35 percent of everything you worked for all your life, after a $5 million exemption, would be taken by the Government.

May I have 5 more minutes?

What I am trying to do is offer an amendment that will preserve current law so in 3 years, in the case of the death tax, and 2 years, we don't hit people with a tax increase, at a time when we don't need to be raising taxes, at a time that we live in a global economy.

When it comes to the death tax, one in three small business owners is never able to pass their business on to the next generation because, when they

die, the assets are evaluated in such a way that people have to break up the business to pay the taxes or they have to sell the family farm.

That is not what we need to be doing in America. That is not fair. The capital gains taxes are at 15 percent under current law. In 2011, they go to 20 percent. There are over 9 million families and individuals who will claim capital gains, and if this amendment doesn't pass and we don't do something about this, there are going to be 9 million families hit by a tax increase out there, at a time when our economy needs more money in the private sector, not in Washington.

As to dividends, there are a lot of people in this country--24 million families and individuals--who receive dividend income. Under current law, it is taxed at 15 percent. In 2011, the dividends go back to regular income tax rates--a dramatic increase.

What does that mean? That means owning stock becomes less attractive. There will be less people buying stock and receiving dividends from purchasing stock. That means people who are trying to create a company or expand their business will have to borrow the money from a bank, rather than getting investors from the market, and that will create more debt on top of what is already a debt-laden country.

As to small business expensing, under current law, firms may expense up to $250,000 of qualified assets of property they place in service in 2008. In 2011, the expensing allowance is scheduled to revert to $25,000. By being able to expense, from a tax point of view, the purchase of assets, you are able to grow your business, and it makes it attractive to expand your business.

If we don't pass my amendment, in 2011, that $250,000 allowance goes down to $25,000. My amendment reflects a Tax Code that is very generous to the Federal Government but is still burdensome on families and businesses. But to let it get worse, at a time when we are competing in a global economy, and try to pit one group of Americans against another, at a time when we are trying to put our best foot forward as a nation under a stressful business climate, is ill advised.

If you think America is undertaxed, then vote no. If you think we have taken a gracious plenty from business and families, then vote yes. If we don't make these tax cuts permanent in 2013, we are going to drive people offshore and create less jobs, not more; we are going to tax people who are struggling to make it as it is; and it will all be under the idea of fairness. It is unfair to not pass my amendment.

I think it would be incredibly shortsighted not to pass my amendment and make these tax cuts permanent that would allow Americans to keep jobs and grow jobs and pay the bills they are struggling to pay right now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for coming down and highlighting the fact that the Presidential nomination on the Republican side has finally come to a conclusion--Senator McCain won. To all those who were in the race, I think I have a little taste of how difficult it was for you and your families.

The Republican Party was blessed this year to have a group of candidates who represented the best in the Republican Party: To Governor Huckabee last night, he ran a great campaign; Governor Romney; Ron Paul--whatever you want to say about Ron Paul, he bleeds, he won his primary last night--and Mayor Giuliani. What a talented field we had on our side. It is equally true on the other side. We are going to have a Senator, as Senator Burr said, for both parties. I do not know when that last happened. But it is an exciting time.

I have had the pleasure of knowing Senator McCain for many years. They will write books about how this happened because our campaign ran into a wall in the summer. I think one of the things you can say about Senator McCain, as Senator Burr indicated, is that when he sets his mind to something, he is pretty hard to stop. He believes he has a little more service left in him.

If you want to know John McCain, you need to look at his family and the way he has lived his life--his time in the Navy. He looks at being President as one more chance to serve the country.

I was talking to him last night. The idea of being President is overwhelming. It is such a prestigious office, it is such an important office for the world and for our Nation. I just indicated to him: Just look at it as another tour of duty. This time you are Commander in Chief.

To the men and women in uniform out there who are serving in faraway places, standing watch as I speak, you are going to have a great Commander in Chief if John McCain wins. The other candidates are fine people, but I think the differences are going to be real.

Senator Clinton said something last night. She is a very strong competitor and you never count the Clintons out and I do admire Senator Clinton. This is going to be a spirited contest. But she said she wanted to end the war in Iraq and win in Afghanistan. Well, what the heck does that mean? I want to win in Iraq and I want to win in Afghanistan.

Senator Obama, who is a real phenomenon, who has come a long way in a short period of time, says the world is watching. He talked about some gentleman, the grandfather of one of his campaign operatives, I think maybe in Uganda, staying up all night to watch what we do in America. Senator Obama is absolutely right.

I can tell you who else is watching. Some of the most vicious killers known to humanity are watching what we do in terms of Iraq and the war on terror. They are measuring us. They are measuring our candidates for President.

They are seeing who blinks and who does not. They are going to watch what we do in the Senate, and they are looking for openings.

This is going to be a great contest. What an important time for America and the world. I hope we can have a civil debate. I am sure it will be. But the fact that there are great differences in a democracy is a good thing. I say to the American people, you are going to be blessed with some good choices. Please choose wisely because a lot of people depend on what you say or do.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield?

I would request to be able to speak for 10 minutes and then go into a quorum call, if that is OK.

I thank the Senator.

I appreciate the ability to speak. And I wanted to talk about the pending business before the Senate, the bill by Senator Feingold, with 30 hours of debate about whether we should have a requirement for different agencies to report back to the Congress about where al-Qaida exists and how to defeat them and how to deploy our forces to defeat them.

I would argue that you do not have to be a military expert to understand where al-Qaida exists. They exist in all corners of the globe. Their goal is to prey on poverty, to take smart people and convert them to their cause. And how do we beat them? Fight them. Understand what they are up to so we can hit them before they hit us.

And whatever problems we have with coming together over domestic problems and domestic agenda items, it is important that we try to find common ground to deal with the problems facing the country domestically, but surely we can come together to authorize

an intelligence tool called FISA to make sure we understand where al- Qaida is, what they are up to, and what their plans are vis-a-vis the United States.

And this body, to its credit, the Senate passed a reauthorization of FISA that I think is a great balance between intelligence needs, tracking an enemy that we are at war with, and making sure that American citizens are protected in terms of their constitutional rights and civil liberties.

This passed 68 to 27 or 28 and went to the House and here we are without a bill. The bill has expired. The FISA legislation that the Congress came up with last year is now expired, and there is a hole in our intelligence-gathering capabilities. So those of us who wanted to find out what the enemy is up to--and I think that is the vast majority of this body--those of us who want to have a balance between civil liberties and being at war with a vicious enemy, we need to push the Congress, particularly our colleagues in the House, to get this FISA legislation reauthorized.

Al-Qaida is in Iraq. They were not there before. That is probably true. They are there now. And the reason they came to Iraq is to make sure we lost. They came to Iraq to make sure this effort of moderation among Muslims in a Muslim country fails. It is their worst nightmare for a Muslim nation such as Iraq to come together and align themselves with the West, coalition forces, adopt democratic principles, allow a mother to have a say about the future of her child, and to live under the rule of law and not the rule of the gun, and to accept religious differences. That is al-Qaida's worst nightmare.

The reason they were not there under Saddam Hussein's regime is he was not the problem to them. You know, dictatorships are very nonthreatening to al-Qaida. Saudi Arabia has been a problem because Saudi Arabia has aligned itself with the West at times and allowed American troops to operate out of Saudi Arabia, such as when Saddam Hussein attacked its neighbor, Kuwait. So al-Qaida has gone after Saudi Arabia.

But they were indifferent to Iraq because Saddam Hussein vowed to destroy the State of Israel, it was an oppressive regime, and pretty much not their problem. Al-Qaida's biggest fear, again, is tolerance, moderation, the rule of law, a role for a woman in society, and the ability to worship God in more than one way. That is why they are in Iraq.

And to say they were not there before Saddam Hussein and think that is a clever answer to our problems and the justification to withdraw misses the point and shows a lack of understanding of why they chose to go to Iraq.

Why do the Taliban fight in Afghanistan? They would like power back. Why are we fighting them? To make sure they do not get power back. So if you really want to defeat al-Qaida and come up with a strategy to make sure they are diminished and defeated, do not leave Iraq before the job is done.

The greatest news of all from the surge is not the stunning political progress that has exceeded all of my expectations, it is not the economic vitality that is coming back to Iraq, not the reductions in casualties, not the reduction in sectarian deaths, the big picture, the big story line from the surge in Iraq is that Muslims aligned themselves with coalition forces to make sure that al-Qaida would be defeated in Iraq.

Sunnis in the Anbar province that were at this time last year very much living in fear of al-Qaida decided to take matters into their own hands, align themselves with us. And due to additional combat power and capability, we were able, along with the Sunni Arabs in Anbar province, to deal al-Qaida a devastating blow.

They have left Anbar for the most part. They are diminished in Anbar, still not completely defeated. And they are moving north. And we are right after them. They are up in the Mosul region. If we are patient and we are persistent and we keep the troop levels we need to keep them, along with the Iraqi security forces that have grown by 100,000 since last year, we will crush them. We will capture or kill them in large numbers as we have done over the past year.

The answer to the question of this legislation by Senator Feingold: What do we do to defeat al-Qaida? We align ourselves with people in the region and throughout the world who will help us fight them. We do not leave them hanging. We do not withdraw because of the politics of the next election. We align ourselves with people who are willing to fight al-Qaida over there so we do not have to fight them here. And we do not withdraw in a way that would allow al-Qaida to get back off the mat, back into the fight. The first thing they would do is go to the moderates who have helped us and try to kill them.

So this whole idea of leaving Iraq because we need to fight al-Qaida is absurd. We need to fight al-Qaida wherever we find al-Qaida. And they are now in Iraq because they know this experiment in democratic principles and moderation that is going on in Iraq is a death blow to their agenda.

So if you want to defeat them, make sure Iraq succeeds. Their biggest nightmare, again, is a tolerant, moderate form of government in the Mideast. Iraq could be an ally to this country for years to come. It could be a place that denies al-Qaida a safe haven, that rejects Iranian expansion. The payoffs of winning in Iraq to our national security interests are enormous.

The question as to whether Iraq is part of a global struggle or a mere side adventure, I would give you some guidance there from Osama bin Laden himself. December 2004:

I now address my speech to the whole Islamic Nation. Listen

and understand. The most important and serious issue today

for the world is this Third World War. It is raging in the

land of Two Rivers. The world's milestone and pillar is

Baghdad, the Capitol of the caliphate.

This is Osama bin Laden telling his would-be followers where to go and what to do. The Third World War he talks about raging is raging in Iraq. That is why he wants us to fail in Iraq because he would like to be able to have a place from which to operate in Iraq to perpetuate his agenda.

He understands very clearly if we are successful in Iraq, if the Iraqi people themselves are successful, it is dealing al-Qaida a great blow. So the good news from the surge is that after having tasted al- Qaida life in Anbar province, the people of Anbar said: No, thank you. They are now taking their fate in their own hands with our help. And the idea of withdrawing from Iraq as some way to better fight al-Qaida is absurd, naive, and dangerous. The way you beat al-Qaida is align yourself with people like we found in Iraq. You help them help themselves, and you make sure that when Iraq is said and done in terms of battle and a greater struggle that we have won and al-Qaida has lost.

To leave prematurely would put this enemy back into the fight. I cannot think of anything more heartening to al-Qaida operatives throughout the world than to hear that the Congress of the United States is going to precipitously withdraw from Iraq, giving them hope where they have none now. They know they cannot win in Baghdad, Mosul, Fallujah, Basra. They understand that. It is very demoralizing to them right now. The only place they are holding out hope is here in Washington. Can they do something spectacular to create a headline throughout the world that would break the will of the American Congress to stand behind the Iraqi people, who are stepping to the plate and making not only Iraq safer but the United States safer? I hope the answer is no.

I hope we will not let terrorists, murderers, some of the worst forces known to mankind in the form of al-Qaida dictate foreign policy in the United States because they are willing to murder and kill the innocent to break our will.

I hope we are smart enough to reauthorize FISA because this hole in our intelligence-gathering capability is incredibly dangerous. Everybody acknowledges that we live in a dangerous time. Well, do something about it, reauthorize FISA now before we pay a heavy price.

As to those who think we can leave Iraq, and it is going to make things better with al-Qaida, I do not think you understand what al- Qaida is after.

I do hope that the Congress will come together and reauthorize FISA in a way to make us safe. I hope we will understand that the outcome in Iraq is not yet guaranteed, but we are on the right path. Let's don't do anything

here in Washington because of the next election that will haunt this country for decades. Let's not put every moderate force at risk in the Middle East by pulling the plug in Iraq and undercutting General Petraeus. This man and those who serve with him deserve our respect, our gratitude and, more than anything else, our support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to use about 10 minutes or so, if I may, to discuss what I think is an important topic for the country. The Senate has allowed itself to discuss progress in Iraq--or the lack thereof, depending on how you view these things--and to discuss a measure proposed by my good friend, Senator Russ Feingold, that would require us to withdraw troops, I think within a 120-day period, leaving troops behind in a very limited role and basically telling the world and our enemies we are leaving Iraq, and the people left behind would have a very limited function in terms of what they could do--a complete change in strategy. It would be saying to the Petraeus strategy: It failed, it didn't work, and we are going to replace the Petraeus strategy with the Feingold strategy.

Now, as much as I admire Senator Feingold--and that is a great deal, to be honest with my colleagues, because he takes his job very seriously, as do the rest of us, but he is willing to do and say things very few people will do or say, and I think that makes the country a better place. Sometimes I disagree with him. This is an occasion where I find the Feingold strategy replacing the Petraeus strategy would be a disaster for the country, the region, and our national security interests, and I say that with all due respect.

Now, one of the central theses of Senator Feingold and others who support this measure is that Iraq is a side venture, not part of the war on terror, and our presence there is making us less secure, not more, and that we have taken our eye off the ball. I would argue that the enemy doesn't see it that way. It is my belief and contention, and has been for a very long time, that Iraq has become the central battlefront in the war on terror. That happened when al-Qaida decided to go into Iraq after the fall of Baghdad and undermine this attempt at moderation in Iraq, tried to drive us out, and a year ago this time, I was worried that they were going to succeed.

For about 3, 3\1/2\ years, we got it wrong in Iraq. We didn't have enough troops. We had a training model that was not delivering quality in numbers in terms of the Iraqi Army. The insurgency was thriving. There was a lawless period. You had the Abu Ghraib episode that allowed al-Qaida to go on a recruiting drive all throughout the Mideast.

Thank God we changed strategy this time last year. I wish to compliment the President, and all of those--particularly Senator McCain--who spoke loudly and clearly that we needed to change strategy. It wasn't a debate about changing in Iraq. Everybody wanted a change. Some wanted to just leave and worry about the consequences later. Senator McCain and others said: No, we need not only to stay, we need to put more troops on the ground and come up with a way to suppress this insurgency because without security there will never be reconciliation. I think the results are in, and they are overwhelming, and they exceed all expectations I had in terms of success for the surge.

But to the central point: If you believe, as I do, that this is one battle, the central battle in regard to a global struggle, not an isolated event, it is a battle you can't afford to lose. If Iraq fell apart, broke into three parts, became a chaotic state, the national security implications for our Nation are enormous.

They start with the following: Al-Qaida would be on every street corner in the Mideast saying that we beat America and ran them out of Iraq. What would that do in terms of a chilling effect on moderation in the region? Who would be the next group of moderates to stand up and say: Come help me fight against extremism, America, after our behavior of leaving Iraq, and those who helped us to try to make Iraq a better place, a new place? They would surely get killed. If we left Iraq, withdrew, gave the battle space in Anbar to al-Qaida totally, they would have killed everybody who tried to help us, and it would have taken decades to get over the consequences of that mistake. You cannot leave people behind to be slaughtered by terrorists and expect to ever win this war.

Here is what bin Laden said in 2002 about Iraq:

I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic Nation.

Listen and understand. The most important and serious issue

today for the whole world is the Third World War. It is

raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone

and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.

Bin Laden did not get the memo that Iraq is not about a global struggle. Clearly, from his point of view, it is the defining battle in terms of his goals and ambition for the al-Qaida movement. The reason al-Qaida came into Iraq was to make sure we would lose, that moderation would fail. Their worst nightmare is for a mother to have a say about her children, and if we can pull this off in Iraq, where the different groups--the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds--can live together under the rule of law, have a central government and local governments that work together and allow people to raise their children without fear and prosper together and a woman has a say about her children, that is an absolute nightmare for al-Qaida. They see the outcome in Iraq as very important to their agenda. I hope we are smart enough to see the outcome in Iraq in terms of our own national security because I have said a thousand times, you cannot kill the terrorists and win this war. Killing terrorists is a part of this war. The war is an ideological struggle. The high ground in this war is the moral high ground. That is why Abu Ghraib hurt so badly. That is why we have to, at every turn, showcase our values as being different from our enemy's. When we capture an al-Qaida operative, it becomes about us. The rules we employ in the capture of an al-Qaida member or any other terrorist showcases who we are, and we cannot use as an excuse they do terrible things and they don't believe the same things we do; therefore, we are going to throw the rules out and be like them. That is the one way to lose this war.

I am proud of my Nation standing by moderation in Iraq. I am sorry to the American people and all those who have gone to Iraq many times that we got it wrong so long. But wars are that way. The model we had after the fall of Baghdad allowed the enemy to grow and become stronger, and it made it difficult to reconcile the country, which is in our national interest.

A year ago about this time, a new general took over with a new strategy: 30,000 troops were interjected into the battle space. But it is not about 30,000 troops. This general understood how to win. We took the troops out from behind the walls, and they started living with the Iraqi Army and police forces in neighborhoods. We took each neighborhood block by block, securing people in a way where they felt comfortable enough to talk to us about their future, about their hopes, and about their dreams, and over time they helped us.

This infusion of military might into Anbar, where al-Qaida was roaming freely, allowed people who tasted the al-Qaida life to say: I don't want to live this way. The Sunni awakening was an effort by a very brave sheik, who is now dead, to break loose from the al-Qaida agenda and come to the American and coalition forces and say: I would like to align with you because this is not the way I want to raise my kids, these are not the hopes and dreams I have for my people in Anbar.

They killed him, and if you go to Anbar, there are photos of this guy everywhere. They killed him, but they did not kill his idea. As a matter of fact, at his funeral and thereafter, the people of Anbar have upheld this sheik as a model of the future, as a hero. Al-Qaida overplayed their hand. They tried to intimidate everybody around them. They are trying to intimidate us: Do it my way or die. Do it my way or watch your children die in front of you. Do it my way or we will burn your children right in front of you. Live my way religiously or lose everything you have, including your life.

You know what, the good news from the surge, beyond all other news, is that a Muslim population had a chance to experience this al-Qaida life and said no. That, to me, is the single most important event that has happened in the last year, that Muslims would turn on al-Qaida and fight them and say: You are wrong; this is not what the Koran teaches, this is not the way we are going to live our lives. And they have done something about it.

The sheik has given his life. Many others in Anbar have given their lives to make sure al-Qaida does not win. Al-Qaida lost in Anbar because we had enough military presence, along with a new attitude of the people who live there, to beat these guys. They are not 10 feet tall. They are thugs, and history is full of people such as this who have had ideas that certain groups are not worthy of living. The Nazis had their view of who could live and who would die, and it was based on racial stereotyping, prejudice. There have been other episodes in history where religious bigotry determined who lived or died.

The way you beat these people is not for the good people to come home and leave the battlefield to the enemy; it is for the good people to rally around the values that make this place worth living and fight these people. The way you win this war is you align yourself with people willing to take on the terrorists and extremists and fight back against al-Qaida, and that is what General Petraeus did. When the awakening occurred in Anbar, we put tanks around every leader we could find and told them: We are not leaving; we are here with you.

The Sons of Iraq is an organization that sprung up from the population, where almost 80,000 people now belong to this organization where they patrol the streets at night to make sure al-Qaida does not come back. Anbar is a completely different place. Al-Qaida has been diminished and defeated in Anbar, and they are moving to other places in Iraq. They are not defeated yet, but they are certainly on the run.

For America not to appreciate what has happened here, for this Congress not to celebrate what has happened in the last year I think is sad. We should be using this 30 hours to say to General Petraeus, thank you; to Ambassador Crocker, thank you; to all those under your command, thank you for having the courage and the wisdom to turn this around, and we acknowledge that you are turning it around. We know you have a long way to go yet, but thank God you have turned the corner, and we have turned the corner. And the corner I wanted to see turned was when the people of Iraq would stand up to the extremists and fight back with our help.

GEN David Petraeus said in May of 2007:

Iraq is, in fact, the central front in al Qaeda's global

campaign.

GEN Michael Hayden, Director of the CIA, said in January 2007:

I strongly believe [that U.S. failure in Iraq] would lead

to al Qaeda with what it is they said is their goal there,

which is the foundations of the caliphate, and in operational

terms for us, a safe haven from which to plan and conduct

attacks against the West.

It is clear to me Iraq is a central battlefront. It is clear to me about 3 years we were losing. It is abundantly clear to me now that we are winning. The Iraqi people have stepped to the plate and produced results that are astonishing, and it has come from a new strategy that has produced better security.

The monthly attack levels have been decreased by 60 percent since June of 2007. How did that happen? This new strategy of General Petraeus of getting military power out into neighborhoods, staying on the insurgency, giving them no rest, emboldening the citizens to fight back has paid great dividends. It is still a dangerous place but what a dramatic change: a 75-percent drop in civilian deaths since the beginning of 2006. From January to December, sectarian attacks and deaths have decreased over 90 percent in the Baghdad security district. How did that happen? We had a plan to secure the capital city by getting out from behind walls, going into neighborhoods, providing firepower and assistance, and the Iraqi people have done their part.

Coalition forces cleared approximately 6,956 weapon caches in 2007, over twice what we found in 2006. How? People are telling us where the weapons are because they want a new country. They see us as a solution to their problems, not the problem, and they are coming forward telling us things they did not tell us last year because they have sensed momentum, they feel as if they are safer and they don't want to go back to the old ways and they are helping us help them.

Iraqi security forces in the last year are responsible for security in 10 of the 18 Iraqi provinces. One of the biggest stories in this year has been the improvement of the Iraqi security forces, particularly the army. The national police have been a real problem. Even they are beginning to turn around. There are 100,000 new members of the Iraqi security forces, many of them being able to operate independently from us, for a total of a half a million people in uniform.

The Iraqi people have stepped to the plate. They are helping themselves in a way I admire. The casualty rate among Iraqis is three times that of our American and coalition forces. Every American death we mourn, but the reenlistment rates among American soldiers, military members who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is through the roof. What do they see that we don't? Why do they go back so many times? I know what I hear. I hear overwhelmingly: Senator Graham, I want to get this right so my kids don't come. I hear from the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines: If we win here, it makes us safer at home. It is hard, it is tough, it is difficult, and they keep going back because they know the outcome in Iraq affects us at home. And God bless them for doing it.

One brief statement: Well done. You have exceeded every expectation I have had. You have done a marvelous job. You performed your mission beyond any measure. You are involved in the most successful counterinsurgency in military history. All those who have taken part will go down in military history. We should be celebrating as a nation what I think is one of the biggest military achievements in the history of the world. But we cannot quite do that. I don't know why.

Al-Qaida is diminished but not defeated, but they are on their way to being defeated.

The big debate has been, what will make the Iraqi politicians get their act together. If we threaten to leave them there, they will start doing business in a better way. I have always felt that if you threaten to leave Iraq, every moderate will be chilled and every extremist will be emboldened. If you want to bring back life to a diminished enemy, let them read some headline somewhere in the world: ``America begins to withdraw,'' as this Feingold resolution would suggest or as Senators Obama and Clinton would have suggested. You would literally breathe life into a defeated, diminished enemy. It would be music to their ears. For every moderate who has sacrificed, lost family members as judges, as lawyers, as policemen, as army members, it would be heartbreaking.

I cannot believe people do not understand the consequences to the world if the American Congress said: We are going to leave Iraq in a set period of time. I cannot believe we do not understand how that would resonate throughout the world. It would be music to an enemy that is really on the run. It would rip the heart out of those who brought this about. And you want political progress in Iraq to go forward? Tell al-Qaida we are going to leave and see what kind of progress we get in Iraq.

The politicians in Baghdad have been frustrating to deal with, sort of similar to here at home. But you know what. I am here to say something I did not think I would say last year: Well done. The debaathification law has passed. What does that mean? It means the Shias and the Kurds have welcomed people back from the Sunni Baathist Party that ran the Government under Saddam to their old jobs, made them eligible for their old government jobs, and they are saying to their Sunni Baathist neighbors: Let's build a new Iraq; let's not look backward.

Can you imagine how hard, I say to Senator Lieberman, that must have been, to have grown up in Iraq, and the people who ran the Government under Saddam Hussein made their life miserable and you have a chance to be on top; you can fire them all and make them miserable, and then suddenly,

after a lot of dying, you realize: Wait a minute, we have to go forward, not backward. The debaathification law is a huge step toward reconciliation.

A $48 billion budget was passed.

Politicians in the Congress can relate to one thing: money. We are always fighting to get our fair share for our State and our districts. The $48 billion budget that was passed has money allocated to every region of Iraq, and reconstruction can now go forward. And the ministries delivering the money are better than they have ever been but with a long way to go.

The fact that Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds would share the wealth of the country with each other seems to me to suggest that they view Iraq as a country. And to give money to someone who may have been involved in trying to kill your family just months ago is very difficult to do. But they have overcome, I think in great measure, the biggest impediment that every country eventually has to overcome--and that is forgiveness. There is a long way to go in Iraq, but we are a lot closer to getting there than we were last year. And the only way we are going to lose is for Washington to screw it up.

The provincial powers law, it passed the Parliament and went to the Council of Presidents. It will allow local elections in every province beginning in October. And I predict if that law becomes reality, Sunnis will vote in large numbers, and they boycotted in 2005.

The central government run by the Shias came to the conclusion that we are going to decentralize power; we are going to let each province elect their local leaders, instead of trying to micromanage everything from Baghdad. You know what that means? Democracy.

To be continued. I yield.

May I have 2 minutes to finish my thoughts?

The provincial election law was vetoed by Abdul Mahdi, a Shia Vice President, over the issue of whether governors elected to the province can be replaced by a majority vote in the Parliament. That is going to their Supreme Court. It is a unique and novel issue, and, to me, it gives great hope because they are resorting to the law rather than the gun. It is constitutional democracy playing out in front of us. It is something we should celebrate.

Amnesty: There are thousands of people in the jails of Iraq now, mostly Sunnis, who have been tied to the insurgency. The Parliament passed a law that will allow a community of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to go through the files of the people in jail and say to some of those who have taken up arms against the Government: Go home, my brother, and let us build a new Iraq. That is a stunning development.

Now, how did all this happen? Iraq is war weary. People are tired of living in fear. We have given them better security; we put al-Qaida on the run, which has been trying to stir up trouble ever since Baghdad failed; and people have a sense of economic and political hope they have never had before. Oil revenues are up, have doubled. Oil production is up 50 percent. The economy is moving forward at a very fast pace. All of this is due, in my opinion, to resolve, to the surge, to the bravery of the Iraqi people and the American military and coalition forces who brought it about.

To my friends and colleagues in Congress: We are going to win in Iraq. Finally, we have a model that will lead us to a stable and functioning government rejecting terrorism and aligning with us in the war on terror. And the only way we will lose now is for Washington to lose its will and undercut this model. I hope we understand what this debate is about. It is about winning and losing a battle that we can't afford to lose.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Oklahoma will return in a moment. If it would be appropriate, I would suggest that he go. I think he will go next, followed by myself, a Democrat, then Senator Sessions.

I will get started. Senator Coburn, I think, has been to Iraq just a week or so ago. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the condition on the ground as he found it.

And to my friend, Senator Feingold, one thing I think all of us should agree upon is that you pushed this idea of withdrawing from Iraq for a very long time. There is no question in my mind that you are very sincere, that you believe it makes America stronger not weaker, and that if the polls were 90-10

to stay, you would be doing this, simply because that is what motivated you as a Senator.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for what makes you tick as a Senator. I know you take on some very difficult challenges, sometimes not popular, and this particular piece of legislation, I think, is ill- advised. I will speak for a while as to why it should be defeated.

But the author of the amendment is consistent, is as patriotic as anybody else who will speak, and we need more of this, not less. So what is the Senate all about? We are talking about important things. There are a million things going on in this country that need to be addressed. But I think taking some time to talk about Iraq, where we are, where we are going to go, and how we are going to get there is probably time well spent. I think most Americans are very interested in the outcome in Iraq.

Having just returned from Iraq, I think Senator Coburn can give us his view of what he found.

I yield the floor and will speak after he is through.

Mr. President, I returned Thursday of last week from Iraq after my tenth visit. A year ago this time I quite honestly thought we were going to lose this thing--incredibly depressed, because you could see over about a 2\1/2\ to 3-year period it getting worse with each visit. Things have changed dramatically. But it is important for every Senator to put Iraq in context so their constituents and the Nation can judge what our proposals are and what makes us tick on Iraq.

I believe Iraq is the central battlefront, not the only one, in the overall struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. At the time Saddam Hussein was invaded and replaced, it wasn't to drive al-Qaida out of Iraq, absolutely not. It was a dictator who had created war and chaos in the region as long as he had been a dictator, who had defied 17 U.N. resolutions to let us inspect his weapons program. It was the Russians, the French, and every other intelligence organization in the world believing that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It was basically neutering the effectiveness of the U.N. The Oil for Food Program designed to help the Iraqi people and control the dictator was a joke. So the reason we invaded Iraq is because the dictator was defying the world. He made us want to believe he was trying to procure weapons. Because if he wasn't, he should have opened his country to inspection. He was living off the Oil for Food Program.

We had 70 something Senators vote to authorize force. The reason most of us voted that way is because all the evidence possessed by everybody in the world suggested that Saddam Hussein was not becoming the solution to the Mideast; he was still the problem.

What happened? We displaced the dictator and we got it very badly wrong after the fall of Baghdad. We had a model that was short on troops. There was a period of time when we allowed the country to become lawless. Instead of stopping looting and pillaging, we let it grow. We disbanded the Iraqi Army, and they could have been helpful, at least some of them. We made a lot of mistakes after the fall of Baghdad. For about 3 years plus, we were pursuing a strategy that was not producing results. Why? Because we didn't have enough troops. The enemy was getting stronger, not weaker.

We had a great debate last year as to whether we should change course. Everybody in the body suggested we change course, because it was clear the old strategy was not working and it was depressing to go to Iraq and hear the people in charge on the ground say things are fine, when you knew they weren't.

I am not a military commander. I am a military lawyer. But common sense would have told you a couple years ago that this thing was slipping away. So it was time to act and change course. There were two ways to do it. You could pull the plug and start pulling people out or you could add more troops to secure the Nation in a way that we should have done after the fall of Baghdad.

I will take responsibility for my point of view of not pushing harder early on to have more troops. But I can promise you this: For a couple years, along with Senator McCain, we pretty much were the lone voices to add more into Iraq. As the polling numbers on Iraq changed, the desire to add more troops dramatically got more difficult for a politician. But that is what we

needed. I am here to tell you a year after the surge began that those who said the war in Iraq was lost were wrong. Those who said the surge had failed last April before it even started were wrong. Senator Feingold passionately believes that the troop presence in Iraq should change, and he was suggesting withdrawal long before it was popular. There are some people who have been playing Iraq for the next election, not for the next generation or the next decade. They have made bold statements such as it is all lost, that we have lost in Iraq. They never told us who won, because wars are about winning and losing.

If you believe, as I do, that this is a battle in a greater war, could you afford to lose? What is the price to the United States to lose a battle against al-Qaida anywhere in the world? What would it cost us as a nation for al-Qaida to be able to stand on every street corner in the Middle East and tell people: We drove the Americans out of Iraq? They came to Iraq after the fall of Baghdad for the very reason we went into Iraq, except with a different result in mind. We wanted to replace the dictator and allow people in Iraq who had been oppressed for 30-something years to have a better life and ally themselves with us and be a peaceful neighbor rather than an agent for destruction in the region. We wanted to allow a woman to have a say about her children. We wanted Sunnis and Shias to be able to live together and prosper. We wanted a peaceful Iraq.

Al-Qaida saw what we were doing, and they came in droves to make sure we were not successful. The question has to be: Why does bin Laden care about Iraq? Why is he sending everybody he can get to go into Iraq? Why is he disappointed with the performance of al-Qaida in Iraq? Because he said the land of the two rivers is the great battle of our time. The land of the two rivers is Iraq. Bin Laden, no matter what you think about him, understands the consequences of us succeeding in Iraq. It is a nightmare to his way of doing business. The thought of a woman being able to run for office, hold office, have a say about her children is a nightmare. The idea that Sunni, Shias, and Kurds can live together and not be told how to worship God is an absolute affront to his way of thinking. The idea that the Iraqi people would align themselves with us for a peaceful Mideast must drive him crazy.

They came, al-Qaida, with a mission in mind. That was to drive us out and kill this effort at moderation. Thank God the President changed course with a mission in mind. We put more troops on the ground beginning last February. A year later I am here to tell my colleagues, it worked. All of those who said we had lost in Iraq and the surge had failed were absolutely wrong. Thank God we didn't listen to them. Because if we had left Iraq, al-Qaida, as sure as I am standing here, would be claiming all over the world they beat America. Iran would be the biggest winner, second only to al-Qaida. And Iraq would be a chaotic place where the Sunni-Shia fight would spill over to the region. If you think there is a problem now between Turkey and the Kurdish rebels up in the north, imagine a collapsed Iraq. What is that worth to prevent? Let me tell you what it is worth. It is worth everything we have to throw at it.

Let's talk about the troops for a minute. We all appreciate them. I don't doubt that one bit. But answer this question: Why do they reenlist after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan at higher levels than anywhere else in the military? What do they see that we don't see? Why do they keep going back the second and third and fourth time?

My opinion is: They get it. They understand their commitment and their sacrifice now will prevent their children from having to go to such a battle in the future. And they buy this idea that if we can contain extremism and defeat it in Iraq, we are safer here at home. They believe it so much they keep going and going and going.

Let me tell you something no one said yet: Well done. We should take this 30 hours and celebrate what I think is the most successful military counterinsurgency operation in the history of the world. We should take the 30 hours and go over in detail what the commanders and the troops under their command have accomplished. It is a phenomenal story that will be talked about in military history for decades to come. It has exceeded every expectation I had. Adding more troops into Iraq, I thought, was essential and would matter, but I never dreamed it would matter this much.

Let's talk about what has happened since the surge began.

Monthly attack levels have decreased 60 percent since June of 2007 and are now at the same levels as early as in 2005 and some points of 2004. In other words, we are rolling back the clock on attacks.

Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent since a year ago, dropping to a level not seen since the beginning of 2006.

Now, what does that mean? The better security, the more likely the Iraqi people will step up to the plate and reconcile their differences. I have always believed that was the key to stabilizing Iraq.

Now, when we try to do things such as immigration--and my good friend in the chair knows how hard that is--they run awful ads against you and say terrible things about you on the radio and make life pretty difficult for a politician to take on the hard things. Everybody likes doing the easy things. Very few of us like doing the hard things. But when you do the hard things, you get a lot of push-back. But we keep trying.

Imagine trying to sit down across the table or the aisle with someone of a different sect, and they kill your family. Now, what kind of world is that? The violence in Iraq had gotten so out of control that the idea of political reconciliation, to me, was impossible. To expect people to go to Baghdad and solve their nation's problems--because the threat of violence covered the country, I knew we would never get reconciliation. But here is what I hoped.

I hoped if we could turn this around and reduce civilian casualties and reduce the level of attacks and reduce sectarian deaths--which have decreased by 90 percent in the Baghdad security districts; listen to this: a 90-percent reduction in sectarian killings in Baghdad--I always believed if we could do that, the Iraqi people would rise to the occasion because they do want a new Iraq. That was my bet. That was my hope. And if they do not want it as much as I want it, or more than I want it, then it is never going to happen.

But here is the evidence, after a year of sacrifice, blood, and treasure--not just by us but by the Iraqi people. Their army and security forces have increased by 100,000.

Let me tell you what it is like to go to the recruiting station in Berkeley. You get pushed back because of the city council ordinance.

Let me tell you what it was like to go to the recruiting station in parts of Iraq a year ago. They were killing people who were trying to join the army and security forces. They were attacking recruiting stations. They were getting the names of those who wanted to join the army and security forces, and they were coming after their families; and they still came.

I have been to Iraq 10 times, and I can tell you, I met people the first couple visits who are now dead because the terrorists killed them. Because what the people were trying to do is create a moderate form of living that is an absolute nightmare for al-Qaida.

I have always believed, after having gone there so many times, that the Iraqi people are willing to die for their own freedom, and if they can pull this off, it makes me and my family and my country safer. So that is why we stay, that is why we fight. And we are winning.

What has happened in the last 60 to 90 days? Not only have we reduced the level of attacks by 60 percent--and civilian deaths are down by 75 percent and sectarian deaths are down by 90 percent--we have doubled the amount of weapons caches found because we are getting better information from the population. They are telling us things they did not tell us before.

Ten of the eighteen provinces have been taken over by Iraqi security forces. The Iraqi security forces grew by 100,000 in 2007 and stand now at more than half a million.

All I can tell you is the Iraqi people have taken the opportunity we provided them with the surge to stand up

for their own freedom. They are dying at 3 to 1 our rate. They have paid a heavy price. Our country has paid a heavy price. But the reason the Iraqis keep coming after somebody falls is because they want a better way.

If I had to put in a story line the most important aspect of the surge, it would be as follows: A Muslim country made up of different Islamic sects turned on al-Qaida. Listen to that. With better security and a strong commitment from the United States that we will be your ally, we will not leave you, we will not abandon you to this vicious enemy, they slowly but surely turned on al-Qaida, beginning in Anbar and now marching throughout the whole country.

What does that mean for the overall war on terror? That is something we should be on the floor celebrating because the way you win this war is not: Kill every terrorist. The way you win this war is: You stand by forces of moderation and you give them the ability and the tools to change their own destiny.

Look what has happened. Anbar Province, a year ago, was determined lost by the Marine Corps. This year, they celebrate a 5-K run through the streets of Ramadi. Why? Because the sheiks, the tribal leaders, the average citizen said no to al-Qaida, aligned themselves with us, and al-Qaida has been diminished in great measure.

To those who want to defeat al-Qaida, stay with the Iraqi people and help them defeat al-Qaida. What a message to the Mideast: Muslims turn on al-Qaida with American support. What is that worth? That is priceless. That is how we win the war.

GEN David Petraeus should have been the man or person of the year. What he has accomplished in a year absolutely is stunning, militarily. It has come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. But to all those who have served under his command, congratulations. You have made military history. You have made your country safer. You have been al- Qaida's worst nightmare. And we are not going to let the Congress undercut you.

Now, the surge was not just about killing al-Qaida. The surge was about providing better security so the Iraqi people could build capacity to defeat their own enemy, enemies within their country, and reconcile themselves.

There have been major benchmarks out there for political reconciliation for quite a while. I said in October of last year, if I do not see progress by January or February of 2008, I am going to reevaluate my position vis-a-vis the Iraqi central government. One thing I can tell you, after a year, and going into March of 2008, the Iraqi political reconciliation has astonished me.

They have passed the debaathification law, and they deserve credit for it. What does it mean? It means Sunnis who held jobs in the Government during the Saddam era are going to be allowed to get some of their jobs back. What does that mean in real terms? That means the Shias and the Kurds have looked at a former oppressive group--people who ran Saddam's government--and said: Come on back. Let's build a new Iraq.

My God, what a statement to make. How hard that must have been for people who have lived under the thumb of Saddam Hussein and the people who ran his government, to turn to that same group and say: Let's move forward. Come back and help us build a new Iraq.

A provincial powers law just passed. What does that mean? It means the central government in Iraq, where the Shias dominate, has allowed the opportunity for local elections to occur in October of this year, hopefully.

That means that the Sunnis in Anbar can actually elect their own local leadership. They can elect people to send to Baghdad to represent their interests.

That means the Shias in the south are going to have a chance to elect their equivalent of a mayor, a county councilman, a Governor.

It means the central government, dominated by Shias, has turned to every province in Iraq--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd--and said: Instead of us running your life, you elect your local leaders.

That means they bought into this idea of democracy, where people vote for whom they want to make local decisions.

Here is what I predict: that in 2008 there will be provincial elections, and there will be a huge turnout. In 2005, the Sunnis boycotted the elections in Iraq because they were not certain that democracy was for them, and they were afraid of being left out. It is the Sunnis who are pushing for local elections, and they were able to win in Baghdad.

They passed a $48 billion budget--something we cannot do. A $48 billion budget has been passed, with the blessing of all groups, that will allow money to flow from Baghdad to reconstruct the country in every corner.

The hardest thing for one politician to do for another is to reach a deal in allocating resources because you always want more for your people and less for the others. We still do that here. I love Colorado, but I like South Carolina to get its fair share; and usually that means I care more about South Carolina spending than I do Colorado. But people, such as the Presiding Officer and myself and everybody else in this body, usually were able to give and take and get a budget that helps everybody.

Can you imagine how hard that must be for a group of people who have lived under a dictator who have never had that responsibility before and who have been suffering from violence inspired by al-Qaida, sectarian in nature? They were able to overcome that hatred and that bitterness that has been inspired by al-Qaida and say to each other: Here is the money of the country. You get your share.

That is progress. That is hope. That is al-Qaida's worst nightmare.

The one that means the most to me is that the general amnesty law was recently passed. I have been a military lawyer for 25 years and a student of history to some extent. What happened in Baghdad is astonishing. The prisons are full of insurgents. People aligned themselves with the insurgency during this lawless period. Blood has been taken and shed from each group, one to the other. Most of the people in jail are Sunnis. There are more and more Shia militia, but right now it is Sunnis.

The central government in Baghdad passed a general amnesty law where a committee will be formed of all groups to go through the files of those in prison to allow them to come back home and be part of the new Iraq. That is a level of forgiveness and a desire to start over that had to be incredibly difficult because there is nothing sweeter than revenge.

The people who were on the bottom in Iraq for a long time, the Shias and the Kurds, and those in the Sunni world who were trying to basically prevent Iraq from coming together as one, have now seen it is better for them to chart a new destiny, a new course together. They have a long way to go, and they are going to be fought at every turn.

If you understand nothing else from this speech, as Senator McCain would say, understand this: al-Qaida is diminished, but they are not defeated. Their goal tonight or tomorrow or the next day is to create a spectacular attack that will make headlines all over the world, and people in this body will respond to those headlines and try to change course in policy. I would argue the worst thing we could do is allow one of the most vicious movements in the history of mankind to change American foreign policy because they have the ability and the desire to commit mass murder. So beware of al-Qaida. They are diminished, but they are not yet defeated, and they know they can't win in Iraq, but they are still not sure they can't win in Washington. They are not going to win in Anbar. They are not going to win in Baghdad, they are not going to win in Fallujah, they are not going to win in Diyala, and they are not going to win in Basra. But the question is, Can they still win in Washington? I hope the answer after this debate is no. If we would take winning in Washington off the table, reconciliation in Iraq would go at a faster pace, not a slower pace.

Economic progress in the last year: Oil production in Iraq has risen by 50 percent over what it was a year ago. Oil production is up 50 percent because of better security. Oil revenues are double what they were a year ago, and the Iraqi central government has shared the resources with everybody in the country. Inflation has fallen from 66 percent to less than 5 percent in a year. What does better security buy

you? It buys you a functioning economy, political reconciliation, and better military security. Electricity demand is up more than 25 percent since last year. People are purchasing, they are buying, they are building hopeful lives. There are 21 new health clinics in Baghdad, 1,885 new schools, and 604 refurbished schools throughout Iraq.

People say: What about South Carolina? What about the schools in South Carolina? Lord knows we have our fair share of educational challenges in South Carolina and, like every other place in the country, we could use more money. But I am here to tell my constituents that the price to be paid in blood and treasure in the future losing Iraq is far greater than the price we are paying now, in my opinion. If I did not believe it, I would not say it. If the men and women in uniform didn't believe it, they wouldn't go back time and time and time again. If we can continue this model that has produced dramatic success beyond my imagination, we will win in Iraq, and everybody in this body, their families, and our Nation as a whole will be safer for the experience because it means al-Qaida lost.

Al-Qaida came to Iraq with a purpose: to undermine this effort at moderation, stability. They came for a purpose: to make sure a woman never had a say about her children. And they are losing. They have not yet lost, but they are on the road to losing, and they know it.

What is it worth for our country to align itself with a Muslim nation to turn on al-Qaida? It is worth everything to me. It is certainly worth my political future.

A year ago, when this debate was started, the polls were incredibly against the idea of sending more troops. The need for more troops existed, in my opinion. A year later, the results of more troops and better security is astonishing.

The way to get the Iraqi people to reconcile themselves is not to leave them, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that will encourage the enemy who is on the mat to get back up into the fight. The way to get them to reconcile themselves is to stand with them, to stand by them, invest in the training of their army, help them get on their feet. That is the way to beat al-Qaida. Winning is going to happen in Iraq unless we change this model here at home.

People ask me: Senator Graham, what is winning? Winning, to me, is a stable, functioning government, aligned with democratic principles, at peace with its neighbors, that rejects Islamic extremism, will deny al- Qaida a safe haven, and will align itself with us in the greater war on terror, and finally, will create a system where a mother can have a say about her children. We are not there yet, but we are well on our way.

We have a model that will lead us to victory: a general who knows what he is doing and brave young men and women who are sacrificing because they understand the need to sacrifice. They are excited. They want to come home, but more than anything else, they want to win. That is why they keep going, going, going, and going. They are going to win unless we do something here at home to make it hard for them to do so.

The worst thing we could do now as a nation is to ignore the results of the last year, worry more about the next election than we do about winning this global war, and try to get an advantage over each other based on the next election cycle. I hope the Members of this body will understand that the turnaround in Iraq is not only dramatic, it makes us safer as a nation here at home, and that we now have a model that will allow us to win what I think is a war we can't afford to lose.

Let it be said, finally, that there are Muslims in this world of different sects who will come together and fight al-Qaida with us. Let it be said that there is a nation called Iraq that has lived under an oppressive dictatorship for over three decades, that is beginning to taste freedom, that they are fighting and dying for their own freedom in large measure, that they are beginning to reconcile their political differences, they are beginning to build a larger army that is combat ready, that they are beginning to create an economy that will allow them to sustain themselves, and they are beginning to create a society that will allow us to live in peace with them and be a force of moderation for the region. That, I say to my colleagues, is an outcome very beneficial to the United States.

I am glad we are having this debate. I am glad we have a little bit of time in a chaotic election year to take a breath and at least allow one Senator to say to the troops: You are winning. You should be proud. Good job. We are behind you here at home. We are behind the policy you are trying to implement. I hope they come home sooner rather than later. I believe they will. But when they come home, they are going to come home in a way that will allow them to tell their grandchildren: I did something that mattered for our country. That is why they keep reenlisting.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I oppose the conference report on the intelligence authorization bill.

I was troubled to learn the Intelligence Committees inserted in the conference report a provision to apply

the Army Field Manual to the CIA program. This was done without any hearing or vote in either the House or the Senate.

I strongly regret the committee chose this course of action since it denies the Senate the opportunity to fully appreciate the implications of such a restriction on the CIA program.

It would be a colossal mistake for us to apply the Army Field Manual to the operations of the CIA. I have been briefed on the current CIA program to interrogate high value targets. It is aggressive, effective, lawful and in compliance with our legal obligations. Unfortunately, the intelligence authorization bill as currently drafted will destroy the CIA program.

I believe in flexibility for the CIA program within the boundaries of current law. The CIA must have the ability to gather intelligence for the war on terror. In this new war, knowledge of the enemy and its plan is vitally important and the Army Field Manual provision will weaken our intelligence gathering operations.

It is regrettable that the debate on the intelligence authorization bill has become a debate about waterboarding. Waterboarding is not part of the CIA program.

However, waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear violation of U.S. law and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit this practice. In 2005 and 2006, the Senate overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan fashion stood up against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and abided by the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdan case that that those in our custody are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, senior administration officials assured us that the language contained in the Military Commissions Act clearly outlawed waterboarding.

Imagine my surprise when the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence stated that waterboarding may be legal in certain circumstances. I cannot understand what legal reasoning could possibly lead them to this conclusion.

Given the Attorney General's recognition during his nomination hearing that the President cannot waive congressionally mandated restrictions on interrogation techniques, including those included in the McCain amendment and the Military Commissions Act, it is inexplicable that the administration not only has failed to publicly declare waterboarding illegal, but has actually indicated that it may be legal.

During the past several weeks we have heard many justifications for the administration's incomprehensible legal analysis. At the end of the day, it appears it is the view of the administration is that the ends justify the means and that adhering to our values, laws, and treaty obligations will weaken our nation. I strongly disagree.

I support aggressive interrogation of detainees in the in the war on terror. And the CIA program is a vital component in securing our Nation. As we interrogate and detain those who are intent on destruction of our country and all those who fight for liberty, we can never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our Nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values but because we have held fast to them.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about my friend and colleague, Senator Lott.

Senator Lott has compiled a long and distinguished career in public service on behalf of the people of Mississippi and our Nation. He has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the needs of his State and its people, particularly in light of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. Senator Lott also fought for our men and women in military uniform to ensure they have the best training, equipment, and technology available. Throughout his career, he believed that the American people should be able to keep more of their own money instead of sending it to Washington. Finally, Senator Lott understood and appreciated the fact we need judges on the Federal bench who will uphold the law, not make the law.

During his time in the Congress, he has been an active participant in many important legislative battles. The votes he has cast and the policies he supported have made the State of Mississippi and our Nation a better place.

Senator Lott is in a select group of individuals who have held leadership positions in both the House of Representatives and Senate. He has served as House minority whip, Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader and Senate minority whip. His election to these important leadership positions in both bodies show a high level of trust and respect from his colleagues.

With his departure the Senate will lose one of its most effective Senators and the people of Mississippi will lose a powerful advocate. I truly appreciate his leadership, service in the Senate, and service in the House of Representatives, wit, wisdom, and friendship.

I wish him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the bipartisan

FISA legislation passed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This legislation, which was passed by the Intelligence Committee on a 13-2 vote, will give the intelligence community the tools it needs to effectively protect our Nation. It is not a perfect bill, but it is the balanced product of months of hard work by the Intelligence Committee members and their staff.

On the other hand, the substitute amendment proposed by the Judiciary Committee would have substantially weakened the Intelligence Committee legislation and our nation's ability to protect itself. Unlike the bipartisan Intelligence Committee bill, the Judiciary Committee legislation was passed on a series of party-line 10-9 votes. The substitute would have added onerous and unnecessary hurdles to the collection of vital national security intelligence. It would have hamstrung our intelligence community at a very dangerous time in our country's history. I am pleased that the Senate quickly rejected the Judiciary Committee substitute. It would have been foolhardy for the Senate to hinder America's ability to protect itself from terrorists and other threats by gutting the Intelligence Committee bill.

Perhaps the biggest failure of the Judiciary substitute is its lack of a retroactive immunity provision for electronic communication service providers who are alleged to have assisted the government with intelligence activities in the aftermath of September 11. The telecommunications companies that lawfully responded to written requests from their government to help protect the nation need and deserve immunity from frivolous lawsuits that seek hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.

The Intelligence Committee bill includes a responsible retroactive immunity provision to protect the telecommunications companies that aided the government in the wake of the September 11 attacks. However, it leaves legal actions against the government and government officials untouched. The Judiciary Committee substitute does not address the critical need for retroactive immunity for cooperating companies and would risk a future where companies refuse to cooperate with vital government intelligence operations, lest they risk massive legal liability. Without immunity, our Nation faces a substantial decrease in future intelligence. Such a decrease would endanger American lives and is simply unacceptable.

Again, while not a perfect bill, the Intelligence Committee legislation would appropriately balance national security and individual civil liberties. Our intelligence community must be able to gather the information necessary to effectively protect the country. The Intelligence Committee bill is a bipartisan compromise with effective safeguards. The Senate should quickly pass this legislation to give the intelligence community the tools it needs to protect America.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia, thank you. I do hope you will take an opportunity to speak because your voice needs to be heard.

I say to my good friend Senator Levin, we have had a number of chances to work together. I am afraid this is not one of those moments.

What does all of this mean if this language passes? The bill will get vetoed. And when you read the language, what is so bad about it? I know the intent of the author is to try to make Iraq a better place, and he said for as long--I do not want to misquote him--as long as you have this many troops in Iraq, they are not going to do what they need to do politically. They use the troops as a crutch. I think that is the general theme, that we need to somehow let the Iraqi Government know we are not going to be there forever with this number of troops. You need to step up to the plate, generally speaking. I think that is your view of how to put pressure on the Maliki government to reconcile, but, again, I will let you speak for yourself.

My view is that the lack of security has been the biggest impediment to reconciliation, and the security changes in Iraq give us the best hope we have had in 4 years of finding a way forward politically in Iraq. If we change by word or deed or perception our commitment to the military strategy that is currently working, we would be undercutting our best chance for reconciliation.

This amendment, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, does not do anything positive. It sends the signal I have been trying to avoid for well over a year now. For 3\1/2\ years we had the wrong strategy. Finally we have the right strategy, and in my opinion, the best, sensible thing the Senate could do is allow the surge to go forward without any interference, give General Petraeus and those under his command what they need to finish the job. They have done a wonderful job. We are going into the holiday season here and every American, every political leader, should celebrate what I think has been the most outstanding military operation in counterinsurgency history, and we should not have any more debates about that. It is a fact now. We should support it without reservation.

This amendment, the sense of the Senate, will send a confusing signal about what we intend to do militarily. The Senate, in my opinion, should not try to change the mission. The mission is to win. Very simply put, what is my goal in Iraq? My goal is to win a war we cannot afford to lose, to have a military footprint in Iraq as long as it takes to keep al-Qaida on the run, and when we come home, which we surely will, to come home with victory in hand and let the military commanders who are not worried about the 2008 election decide when that transition should take place. Quite frankly, as much as I love my colleagues in this body, I do not trust anybody, including myself, to transition this mission other than General Petraeus.

This statement will be seized upon by people who are following this bill very closely and will send all of the wrong signals, and that is why it will be vetoed. The most sensible thing the Senate could do, and we should have done this 4 or 5 months ago, is allow the surge to go forward without political interference. This is not the time to take command of the operation in Iraq from General Petraeus and his command team and give it to the Senate.

I hope and pray we will allow the surge to be funded, to go forward, and to achieve the goal that is in the national interest of the United States, and that is victory, victory over extremism and support of moderation. So this attempt at making a political statement is ill- advised, comes at the wrong time, sends the wrong signal. The most sensible thing the Senate could do is reject this and allow our military commanders to transition based on facts on the ground, not the next poll or the next election.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the passage of the 2007 farm bill reauthorization. First, I would like to thank Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss and their staff for their tireless efforts to compile comprehensive farm legislation that addresses many differing interests. I truly benefited from their guidance on agriculture matters and look forward to working with them on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

The passage of this legislation is a testament to the will of the Senate to sustain our Nation's agriculture industry. A product of much negotiation and compromise, this bill contains true reform and provides for our Nation through improvements in nutrition, conservation, rural development and energy programs.

I applaud the Senate's commitment to maintaining and improving the current safety net for producers. It is vital that we continue to support these programs so that our producers can remain competitive globally and survive here in the United States. As a matter of national security, we must support programs that will ensure a reliable and constant food supply for all Americans.

The Senate-passed language touches the lives of millions of Americans who benefit from food assistance, conservation and land stewardship, rural development, and energy programs. I am especially pleased by the provisions relating to energy programs and our farming community. I believe that our producers can play an important role in addressing climate change. This bill takes important strides towards the protection of our environment through the authorization of energy programs that build on the potential of cellulose-based ethanol as an alternative energy source.

This legislation is the product of many months of negotiations and undoubtedly the sacrifices of many in order to arrive at this juncture. I am hopeful that the Conference Committee will produce a conference report similar to the Senate version of the farm bill, and that the Senate considers it in a timely manner so that all Americans can benefit from these programs at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is it my understanding I am recognized for 15 minutes. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, to start this discussion about what to do in Iraq, I think we need to sort of take inventory of where we are, what common ground we do have. I do believe there is a vast, wide, and deep support for the men and women in the military by the average Republican and Democrat and Independent citizen and Members of Congress, and that is indeed good news for our country. It is not one of those situations where people came back from Vietnam and were not well received by their fellow citizens. For that, we should all be grateful.

I would like to put this debate in a little different context. As my colleague from Texas said, whether we should have gone into Iraq is sort of a matter for historical discussion. The question for us as a nation is winning and losing, and can you put Iraq in terms of winning and losing? I think you have to because our enemy has. Our enemy, al- Qaida and other extremists groups, looks at Iraq very much as a battlefront and a battle they want to win and us to lose. That is why bin Laden has rallied the jihadist and al-Qaida sympathizers to go to Iraq and go to the Land of the Two Rivers and drive the infidel out, because I think they understand pretty clearly that if Iraq can reconcile itself, become a stable, functioning democracy, with an Iraqi spin to it, where a woman can have a say about her children, where the rule of law would reign over the rule of the gun, and be a place that would absorb religious tolerance, it would be a nightmare for their agenda. So our enemy is very certain in their own mind about what would happen if we won in Iraq.

Again, winning to me would be a stable, functioning democracy, tolerant of religious differences, where all groups would have a political say, where a woman would have a meaningful role in society regarding her children and their future. And it would contain Iran. It would be a buffer to Iranian ambitions. It would deny extremist groups, such as al-Qaida, safe haven. That, to me, is winning, and that, to me, is very possible. The reason I say it is very possible is because it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people themselves to achieve that goal. There is a Shia majority in Iraq, but they are Iraqi Shia. They are Arabs. The Persian Shia majority--there has been a war between these two countries in the past decades and a lot of animosity. So the general feeling on the streets that I have found from many visits to Iraq is that, generally speaking, the Iraqi population does not want to be dominated by anybody, including Iran.

Now, the biggest news of the surge that is not being reported enough, in my opinion, is that given a choice and an opportunity, a Muslim population, the Iraqi Sunni Arabs, rejected the al-Qaida agenda in Anbar. The al-Qaida movement in Iraq was formulated and inspired by outside forces. Leaders from al-Qaida internationally came into Iraq to rally people to the al-Qaida cause. They played a very heavy hand in Anbar, which was brutal--from the small things such as banning smoking to burning children in front of their parents who did not cooperate. They imposed a way of living on the Iraqis in Anbar Province for which the Anbar Iraqi Sunni Arabs said: No, we don't want any more of this. And the sheiks and all the tribes came to our side because al-Qaida overplayed their hand. So the real good news for me is that given an opportunity and being reinforced, the al-Qaida agenda will not sell, and people within the region will turn it down and reject it. That would not have happened without the surge.

I think most of us do not appreciate what life is like in a country where if you raise your hand to be a judge, let's say, not only do you become personally at risk, they try to kill your family--the forces that do not want to reconcile Iraq.

Political debates and discourse in this country can be very contentious, but on occasion we find that middle ground to solve our problems. It is hard and difficult to compromise in an environment where the people who want you to fail literally will kill your family. So the lack of security in the past has been our biggest impediment to reconciliation. Thank God for General Petraeus, General Odinero, and all under their command. You have done a wonderful job.

This we should all agree upon: that the surge, as a military operation, has been enormously successful and I think will be the gold standard in military history for counterinsurgency operations. Instead of bleeding it dry of funds and putting it at risk, we should reinforce it politically, monetarily, and in every other way.

A political leader can reinforce a military leader. Our military, because of our system of government, depends on us, those of us in elected office, to give them the resources to execute the mission they have been assigned. Who among us believes we understand Iraq better than General Petraeus militarily? Who among us advocated the surge as proposed by General Petraeus? Who among us understands counterinsurgency operations better than the general and his staff? None of us, if we would be honest with ourselves. He is the expert in this area. He has been given an ability to engage in military operations with a completely new theory, and it is working--undeniably working.

Security in Iraq is better. Anbar has literally been liberated. If you told me a year ago, this time last year, we would be moving marines out of Anbar because the security environment

would justify it, I would have thought: That is optimism beyond what I can muster. But it has happened. And all throughout this country called Iraq, people are beginning to reconcile themselves because of better security. Quite frankly, they are war weary.

But I am not going to reinvent history. The blame is across the board and across the aisle. How many times did Republicans go to Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, for maybe 3 years, and say: It is really going well, it is just the media's fault. It was not going well, and it was not the media's fault. The strategy was failing. So people on my side of the aisle were cheerleading for a strategy that, if we followed it, we would have been hopelessly lost in Iraq. So there is plenty of blame to go around. Finally, we now have adjusted. We have a new general with a new strategy. It is a lot more complicated than just 30,000 new troops. We are deploying them differently. We are going after the insurgency in a different way.

The biggest nightmare for al-Qaida has been the surge. If you ask to pick winners and losers of the surge, it would be extremist groups. At the top of the list would be al-Qaida, and it is soon going to be the Shia militia aligned with Iran. There is an offensive about to take place in Iraq that is going to put the nail in the coffin of extremist groups. They are not defeated yet, but they are greatly diminished.

Now is not the time, colleagues, for us to put this surge in jeopardy. Our troops are in a political crossfire here at home. They are not in the middle of a heated sectarian war. Security does exist in Iraq now to get business done. There are extremist groups, and it is still dangerous, but the military has done its part to allow the Iraqi people to reconcile themselves.

We have not done our part. We are still fighting a battle as if nothing new has happened. We are still holding on to positions stated in April and May as if nothing has changed, and that is not fair to those who sacrificed to make it change. I took this floor for a very long time with Senator McCain and a handful of others arguing that the Department of Defense had a strategy doomed to fail. Thank God the President changed course. Thank God for General Petraeus and all under his command.

Now, to my colleagues on the other side, please let us allow General Petraeus to finish the job he started. Within a few months, the troops begin to come home based on the surge being successful. They will return with victory at hand. Victory is not yet achieved, but it is possible. The only way to roll back the security gains is to change the mission and have the Congress start running the war.

The political crossfire I speak of is that some people want to give the money to support the surge only if they get $11 billion of domestic spending unrelated to the military. Some people will not give any money for the surge, continued operations in Iraq, unless we change the mission and withdraw troops by the end of the next year. That is a crossfire politically that is doing more harm than good that should end.

Beginning in March, General Petraeus will come back. He will tell us the situation as it exists on the ground. I am here to tell you, in December, that I am disappointed in the progress at the central government level in Baghdad. They have passed a budget in Iraq--$48 billion. All revenue being shared among all groups is a great step forward, but it is not a permanent solution to the problem.

We need a permanent law, a national law, that will tell every group in Iraq: As to the wealth of the country, part of it will come to your area, and you do not have to worry about it budget by budget. Political reconciliation in Iraq has to happen for the surge to be successful. I have said on numerous occasions that if there is not some major breakthrough on the benchmarks by January, I will look at reconfiguring the aid we give to the Iraqi Government, not changing the troop missions or the troop numbers. I am going to leave that up to the military. It is in our national security interest to maintain the gains we have achieved on the ground to keep Iraq from going into chaos. But we are giving this Government hundreds of millions of dollars of aid, and if they cannot reconcile themselves, we may find other places to spend that money and other ways to spend that money.

So I urge my colleagues to allow the troop funding that is required to complete the surge, to allow it to go forward. Stop this political crossfire of trying to extract from this necessary funding event more money to spend domestically here at home or trying to take the mission away from the military commanders. That is not where our troops need to find themselves in this crucial moment in time.

I can promise you, as we go into next year, if the central government in Baghdad has not done a better job reconciling themselves, I will sit down with anyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to find a way to put political pressure, economic pressure, on this government.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my honor and distinct pleasure to recognize Elestine Smith Norman for 34 years of public service to South Carolina's Third Congressional District. Elestine's dedication to her community is without equal and I was fortunate to have her as a member of my staff when I served in the House of Representatives.

Born on December 12, 1949, to the late Wilbert and Elese Morton Smith of Greenwood, SC, Elestine is the youngest of five children. She attended Brewer High School in Greenwood and became the first member of her family to graduate from college, receiving degrees from Piedmont Technical College and Limestone College.

Elestine has been married to Willie Neal Norman for 37 years. Neal works for the South Carolina Department of Social Service and is the pastor of Weston Chapel AME Church in Greenwood where they have faithfully served for 18 years.

She is a two-time survivor of breast cancer and will be the first to tell you that her faith in Jesus Christ provided her the strength to beat this deadly disease.

Elestine's commitment to her community extends well beyond the office door. She was president of the Greenwood Business and Professional Women's Club, a board member of the local United Way, and sat on the Board of Visitors for both Piedmont Technical College and Lander University. In 2007, she was recognized with the Women's History Month Government Award from the AME Church for the State of South Carolina.

Elestine began her career with the U.S. House of Representatives in 1973. She has been a constituent service liaison for four consecutive Members from the Third Congressional District, Democrat and Republican Representatives Bryan Dorn, Butler Derrick, me, and the current office holder Gresham Barrett. Her love for people and her desire to serve has always put her above a party label.

At the end of this year, Elestine Norman will retire after more than three decades of public service. I thank her for her passion and dedication to her

job. She exemplifies the high level of service to humanity we should all strive to achieve.