Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open today until 2 p.m. for the submission of statements and cosponsorships.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 337, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m., Monday, October 1; that on Monday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and the time equally divided and controlled between the two sides; that at 3 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1585.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come

before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3047

Mr. President, I rise today, as I did when we started this whole debate on children's health insurance, on behalf of the Nation's children and working families. I wasn't intending to come to the floor, but as I have listened to the debate over the last several days, I am amazed we have to defend a program that I cannot believe actually needs defending.

Today, we rise to protect the Nation's children. In this great Chamber, I often hear Members say our children are our greatest asset, and they most certainly are, but they are also our most fragile asset. And nothing is more important in preserving that asset than preserving their health so they can fulfill their God-given potential.

The issue before us today is a matter of values. It is not just about a law or about a program, it is also about a matter of values. Do we value our children sufficiently to ensure that those who otherwise do not have the ability to insure themselves will have the ability to have health care coverage so no child in America goes to sleep at night worried that they not get ill because their parents cannot afford to take care of them? That is the issue before the Senate, the issue before the country, and the issue that will be before the President.

If our values match our action, then this bill needs to be passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President.

This is common sense to me. The bill before us today will keep 6 million children insured and will cover an additional 4 million children who presently go to sleep at night and, because they have no health care coverage, their parents worry over them; and if they get ill, what happens? They wait longer and their illness gets worse. What do they do? They go to an emergency

room, which is far more costly to their lives, as well as to our collective economic consequence. The deal the Senate has before it is to save children's lives and keep children healthy. Bottom line: It is a deal that will keep millions of American children and families from being pushed into the ranks of the uninsured.

I find it interesting that my colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility--now we are going to be fiscally responsible--when we have supplementals that keep coming here without payment for them and without any limitation whatsoever--a blank check. But now we are going to be fiscally responsible on the backs of children.

I want to take a moment to look at the families who are actually affected by the Children's Health Insurance Program. We are not talking about the poor, because if you are poor in this country, you get Medicaid. If you are wealthy, of course, you have the wherewithal to pay for the insurance. We are talking about children whose families work in some of the toughest jobs this country has. They work at jobs that offer no health care, and they certainly don't make enough money to afford private health care coverage. This program is their last resort. I have been watching the floor this week and I have noticed that my State of New Jersey has quite unfairly become the punching bag by some Members of this body for our successful Children's Health Insurance Program. On behalf of New Jersey families, I simply cannot let that go unnoticed. On behalf of the families that the opponents of this legislation say don't deserve to have a doctor or receive medical attention, I am insulted. On behalf of children who are asking for an eyeglass to see a blackboard or get an immunization shot to ward off illness, I am offended.

I will tell you about one of these families in Keyport, NJ. They earn just over $50,000 a year and they have a 16-year-old daughter. They cannot afford private health insurance coverage in New Jersey, but through the Children's Health Insurance Program they can provide their daughter with the much needed health care--health care that protected her when she came down with a flu that would not go away, and care that provides relief to her parents, who don't have to worry about medical bills if their child gets sick.

Even on New Jersey FamilyCare they pay a premium of $74 a month because they are higher on the Federal poverty level. But that is far less than private insurance would cost them, which they could not possibly afford on that $50,000 income for that family of three.

Talking about premiums, let me take a moment to talk about families at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level in New Jersey, since that is a particular point of contention in this debate. Families at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level in New Jersey earn about $60,000 for a family of three. These families, under New Jersey FamilyCare, are paying $125 each month in premiums and between $5 and $35 in copays. It is not a free ride. In fact, most federally elected officials, including my colleagues in the Senate, pay about $190 each month in premiums for their family coverage and their earnings are well above 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. It is hard to see how it is OK for Members of this body but it is not OK for children in this country.

If the President made the decision, it seems he would say ``tough luck'' to these families, ``go ahead and roll the dice on your daughter's health care.'' That is not an action that I think is dignified by a compassionate conservative. The President doesn't want to cover families above 200 percent of the Federal poverty level--this child and so many others like her. I believe that is disgraceful and it should be embarrassing to even threaten a veto of this bill.

Here is my question to those who oppose this bill: Is the greatest Nation on the Earth going to permit its children to have no health coverage?

The President gets some of the best health care coverage in the world, paid by the taxpayers of this country. He can go, as Members of this body can, to Bethesda Naval Hospital, or Walter Reed, or, in the case of the Members of this body, to the Capitol doctor. That is subsidized by the taxpayer. Talk about socialized medicine. It is good enough for Members of this Chamber but not for these children. The President gets the best health care coverage in the world. He deserves to have it, but so do the children of this country.

When you think about using your veto pen, Mr. President, think about your health care coverage that we all pay for as taxpayers. Do these children deserve less?

In New Jersey there are 130,000 children depending on this program for their health coverage. They, along with 6 million children nationwide, depend on this program to stay healthy and, in some cases, stay alive. Proper coverage is often the difference between life and death, between health and sickness, between compassion and heartlessness.

I urge my colleagues to act wisely as this is not a political game, nor is it time to make a point. This is about one thing only: the health of our Nation's children.

What troubles me is that the President is prepared to turn his back and close the doors but, simply put, if his priorities were different, we could provide health care to all children in this country. If we were to take what we spend in Iraq in one day--$300 million--and spend that on children's health care, we could cover 245,000 children. In the past 41 days, we have spent over $12 billion on the war, and what changed in Iraq during that time? But I can tell you what we can do in the lives of children in this country.

Finally, I bristle when colleagues come to this floor and still bring up the red herring of immigrant children being covered who should not have the right. The law has been clear--the law that exists, the law we are renewing. Undocumented immigrants have never--I underline ``never''--been eligible for regular Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. This bill maintains that prohibition. It maintains that. So to continue to come to the floor and bring the bogeyman of those who are coming because they want the health care coverage that this program would provide, it is not permitted under the law, has not been, and is not under this law, and won't be under this law.

I will tell you what is incredibly remarkable. During the immigration debate, we heard a great deal that we should differentiate between those who follow law and the rules and came here legally, and did the right thing and are living legally as permanent residents of the United States versus those who do not. Guess what. We don't even cover the children of those legal permanent residents of the United States who have obeyed the law, followed the rules, and ultimately are working hard in our country. Many of them, by the way--over 70,000--are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. So to say that children are getting covered who are not legal and who are not permitted under the law, that is outrageous. This bill doesn't do it, but we should cover those children of legal permanent residents who have obeyed the law and the rules and are contributing to our society. But we don't do that either. So I hope we stop using children, whether they be those who cannot afford, because of their status in life and because of their parents' hard work but they don't make enough money, to have insurance and ultimately don't get it at their workplace, or those children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this country but who are not covered under this provision anyhow under the law--stop using all of these images to try to undermine the very essence of what this bill is all about.

You either stand with children in this country who, through no fault of their own, have no health care coverage whatsoever, or you stand against them. You stand for the proposition that no child in America should go to sleep at night without health care coverage; you stand for the proposition that it is in the societal interest of this country to ensure that the greatest asset we always talk about, our children--they are also the most fragile asset--can be protected; you stand for the proposition that in this great country of ours, among the high and mighty here, who have great health care coverage, well over 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, that we deserve no more than children in this country do.

That is what this debate and vote is all about.

Before I close, there is one part of this bill that is missing and it leaves

this entire bill and mission to increase children's health care unfulfilled. And that is the lack of language to provide health care for legal immigrant children and pregnant women in this bill.

I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan Legal Immigrant Chidren's Health Improvement Act, also known as ICHIA, which would have repealed the morally objectionable law that prohibits new legal immigrants from accessing Medicaid and SCHIP until they have lived in the United States for 5 years. This bill today should have included a provision that would have given States the flexibility to provide coverage to this population.

I am proud of my home State of New Jersey. They have taken it upon themselves to use 100 percent State funds to cover over 8,000 legal immigrant pregnant women and children--at a cost of over $22 million. My State has temporarily fixed the problem but it is up to Congress to pass the solution into law.

How can you tell a 7-year-old child with an ear infection he has to wait 5 years to see a doctor? We cannot bar these families from accessing our health care system simply because they haven't lived here long enough.

During the immigration debate, our colleagues emphasized the difference between those here legally and those here illegally, so it is appalling to me that a legal immigrant child, whose family waited their time, came here legally and obeyed the law, are still subject to republican criticism and are denied health care.

These fully legal, taxpaying pregnant women and their children deserve to be covered under our children's health program. I am disheartened that we could not agree to include this language but you have my promise that I will work to pass ICHIA in coming months. This is not a question of if but a question of when it will pass.

In conclusion, a great Republican, Abe Lincoln, once said:

A child is a person who is going to carry on what you have

started. They are going to sit where you are sitting, and

when you are gone; attend to those things, which you think

are important. The fate of humanity is in their hands. So it

might be well to pay them some attention.

I ask my colleagues to now pay attention to our children and support this important bill. I ask this for our children, for our families and for the well-being of our country.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that we will have a cloture vote on at some point today or tomorrow, Senator Kennedy's and Senator Smith's Hate Crimes Prevention Act--a vote by which I hope the Senate will succeed, in a robust way, to invoke cloture and to move forward.

Nine years ago, a young man sat in a bar having a good time, like many young men throughout America. Not unlike thousands of young adults at bars across America, this young man needed a ride home from the bar. So he asked two people he had befriended for a ride. They agreed. On the way home, they robbed him, they pistol whipped him, and tied him to a fence, leaving him for dead. They committed this brutal crime for one reason--and one reason only--because the victim was gay.

Since that time, the Congress has been struggling to enact the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act--a bill I am proud to cosponsor. It has received bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. But for some reason, we have been unable to make the bill a law. Today--as soon as this vote takes place--I hope that will change.

Hate crimes violate every principle upon which this country was founded. When our Declaration of Independence proclaimed that ``all men are created equal''--of course, I would take that to mean today all men and women are created equal--it did not go on to say, however, ``except Muslim or Sikh or homosexual Americans.'' It had no exceptions to the rights and liberties Americans had under the Constitution and that Declaration. The freedoms we often take for granted--freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion--become empty promises if we do not protect all those who seek to exercise these freedoms under the Constitution.

Sadly, right now we are not protecting all of our citizens. This is not, by the way, about providing special rights. It is about ensuring constitutional rights.

Local, State, and Federal governments need additional resources and authority to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity. That is exactly what this bill will do. It will allow the Department of Justice to assist in these investigations and prosecutions, and it will provide grants for State and local governments struggling with the costs and logistics of prosecuting these crimes.

Some people may not think hate crimes are a real problem in this country. They are absolutely mistaken. In 2005--the most recent year we have data on--8,380 hate crimes were reported. Of the single-bias incidents, 54.7 percent were racially motivated; 17.1 percent were motivated by religious bias; 14.2 percent resulted from sexual orientation bias; 13.2 percent by ethnicity or national origin bias; and a little under 1 percent by disability bias.

My home State of New Jersey experienced at least 756 bias incidents, 47 percent of which were based on racial bias, 36 percent were based on religious bias, and 11 percent were based on ethnic bias. I say ``at least 756 bias incidents'' because we do not know how many of these vile attacks have gone unnoticed and unprosecuted due to the scarce resources currently available to local law enforcement.

Now, I am proud to have been the author of New Jersey's landmark bias crimes law when I was in the State legislature. We said then we could not eradicate hate or bigotry in New Jersey with a single law, but we could send a strong societal message that such acts would not be tolerated. With this law, we can do the same for our great Nation.

Of course, you do not need to rely on my numbers or my experiences to know that hate crimes are alive and well in the United States. All you have to do is watch television.

Last Thursday, thousands of protesters descended on the small town of Jena, LA, to protest the treatment of six young African Americans. The town was a picture of racial tension, all of which came to the surface months ago when three nooses were hung from a ``whites-only'' tree at the Jena High School. Perhaps if we had stronger hate crimes enforcement, this original action which provoked such violence and started the town down its path would have been properly handled and would have never escalated to the degree it did.

Make no mistake about it, hate crimes are a serious problem in the United States--a problem we can no longer afford to ignore.

Some may protest that this is not the time or place to be debating hate crimes legislation. I disagree. For some, it never seems to be the right time or the right place.

Members of our military are not immune from hate crimes. To the contrary, hate crimes can happen anywhere there are emotions, anywhere there are people with the capability to hate. In 1992, a Navy sailor, Allen Schindler, was murdered by two fellow sailors because of his sexual orientation. In 1999, PFC Barry Winchell was similarly killed because his attackers believed--believed--he was gay. The military has recognized that hate

crimes are a problem and sought to prevent them, but more can and must be done.

It is absolutely appropriate to protect members of our Armed Forces from the vicious attacks that constitute hate crimes while we are debating the Department of Defense authorization bill. It is absolutely the right time to enact this hate crimes legislation. After all, what are our men and women doing in uniform? They are fighting for us around the world to preserve our way of life and to promote democracy, and all of them take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Let the preservation of the rights of all Americans be the essence of what they are fighting for.

I will vote to invoke cloture on the hate crimes amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and Senator Smith, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in recent years, our country has seen a major shift in the way that our National Guard has been used. Traditionally, our Guard units have supplemented our active duty troops during a major war or conflict. But as America faces ever-increasing military challenges, we see these citizen soldiers now replacing active duty troops in operations around the world. Since September 11, many Guard members have been called to active duty for multiple tours, and this is likely to continue in the foreseeable future.

The National Guard has played a critical role in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Currently, almost 15,000 guardsmen and women are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and 242,271 have been deployed since the beginning of Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These tours have stretched our National Guard to the limit, and have severely depleted our Guard's equipment. In reality, much of the equipment that is sent into theater never returns with the Guard units when their tour of duty is complete. This exacerbates the issue of equipment reset.

While we consider the strain that our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are placing on our National Guard, we must also remember that the Guard has another important responsibility: providing security at home. In the past few years, we have seen the valuable role that the Army and Air National Guard play in providing support during domestic emergencies. I know that in my State of New Jersey, the National Guard came to the rescue during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and was also instrumental in helping during the aftermath of the flooding that wracked New Jersey last year. The guardsmen and women also provided critical support in response to the hurricanes that severely damaged the gulf coast in 2005. Unfortunately, our current military operations abroad have left our National Guard without much of the equipment it needs to respond to some of the domestic emergencies I have just mentioned.

In February of this year, the National Guard Bureau released a report entitled ``National Guard Equipment Requirements,'' which detailed the ``Essential 10'' equipment needs to support domestic missions. The shortfalls in equipment total $4 billion, and cover areas including logistics, security, transportation, communications, medical, engineering, aviation, maintenance, civil support teams and force protection, and join force headquarters and command and control. Without the proper equipment, the National Guard will not be able to respond as quickly and effectively in missions here at home.

We saw an example of this in May when tornadoes ripped through Kansas. Although the Kansas National Guard was able to respond to the disaster, Governor Sebelius spoke out about the challenges her State faces due to the severe equipment shortages. National Guard units throughout the country are facing such equipment shortfalls, and with tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and forest fires affecting our nation annually, it is imperative that the National Guard have the equipment it needs to respond accordingly in the face of these emergencies.

That is why I introduced the recently passed amendment that expresses the sense of Congress that the Army and Air National Guard should have sufficient equipment available to achieve their missions inside the United States and to protect the homeland.

This Congress always talks about supporting our troops--well we need to remember that supporting our troops means supporting the National Guard and providing them with the equipment they need not only for missions abroad but here at home. In the coming months, I will be working with my colleagues to see that this Congress provides the necessary funding to address these severe equipment shortages. In the meantime, I hope that the entire Senate will support this amendment.

Mr. President, I am here to offer a resolution which calls on Turkey to immediately begin the withdrawal of its troops from Cyprus and end its military occupation. Turkish troops have now been in Cyprus for over 33 years. The number of these troops has increased over the last three decades so that there are now more than 43,000, making this area one of the most militarized in the world.

Let me be clear. There is no legitimate justification for the 43,000 Turkish troops to be in Cyprus. Cyprus is a peaceful country. Millions of people have been crossing the buffer zone without incident for years. There are no military attacks and there is no need for military protection of Turkish Cypriots. In the end, these troops only serve to create military tension. Again, there is absolutely no legitimate justification for this military occupation.

In fact, Cyprus has historically been an oasis of generally peaceful relations. When Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots emigrate to Great Britain from Cyprus, they often seek to live next to each other as neighbors.

This resolution highlights these examples and uses them as evidence to urge Turkey to immediately begin the withdrawal of its military occupation. And it notes the importance of Turkey fulfilling this as soon as possible so that Turkey, Cyprus, the region and the United States can work more closely on other strategic issues.

This resolution, in addition, calls on the U.S. Government to initiate a new effort to help Turkey understand the benefits of ending its military occupation of Cyprus. Such benefits include: Improving Turkey's European Union accession prospects; improving regional stability; improving relations with Greece; improving relations with the United States and; improving Turkey's image on religious tolerance.

It is also in the best interest of the U.S., the European Union, and NATO for Turkey to end its military occupation of the Republic of Cyprus. Sadly, Turkey ranked last in a recent 47-nation Pew survey for favorable views of the U.S. Ending their occupation will offer more opportunities for U.S.-Turkey cooperation which will only improve our image in this key U.S. ally.

For the U.S. to remain silent during this unjust occupation injures our moral standing internationally. Because silence is complicity, we must speak out.

That is why I am proud to be the lead on this resolution with Senator Snowe which calls on Turkey to end its unjust military occupation in Cyprus.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue. As someone who voted against this war from its outset, I rise in strong support of the Feingold-Reid amendment. The last time we gathered to vote on a change of course in Iraq was July 18, approximately 2 months ago. Since that day, the Iraqi Parliament, with its country in the grips of a civil war, with much work to do to achieve political reconciliation, took a month-long vacation. Since that day, four bombs were set off in concert in northern Iraq, leaving more than 500 dead, the deadliest coordinated attack since the beginning of the war. Since that day, despite a much ballyhooed cease-fire in Al Anbar, Shiek Abu Risha, our main ally in the province, was murdered, a mere 10 days after he shook hands with President Bush. Since that day in July when we last had a chance to change course, another 160 sons and daughters of America have lost their lives in Iraq. Another 160 flag-draped caskets flown to Dover, another 160 renditions of ``Taps'' played at tear-soaked funerals, another 160 American families who will have an empty seat at the table come Thanksgiving.

So here we are again. The calendar changes but the challenges do not. Yet again we meet on the Senate floor to consider another proposal to responsibly and safely transition our mission in Iraq and bring our troops home, out of another country's civil war. Yet again, as we have heard many times before through the course of this failed war policy, the President and his loyalists in this Chamber are using that tired refrain: The plan is working. It needs more time. We cannot leave.

Now, as then, these words ring hollow. The administration that brought us the search for weapons of mass destruction, the ``cakewalk,'' and ``last throes'' is now pitching ``a return on success.'' But this President lost his credibility on Iraq about the time he stood on an aircraft carrier underneath a banner reading ``mission accomplished,'' almost 4\1/2\ long years ago. The administration may be shopping a new catch phrase, but we are not buying anything they are selling anymore. The President, armed with questionable statistics, presented us an open-ended, no-exit plan for the sons and daughters of America who continue to fight and die in Iraq. As a matter of fact, he said it will be up to the next President, in 2009 and beyond.

The reality is that ``a return on success'' is ``staying the course'' by another name. We have tried this road. We have gone down it for 4\1/ 2\ years, with no turn of the wheel. Going down this road has diverted attention from Osama bin Laden, who is back in business and roaming free in a safe zone along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It has fomented terrorism, creating a training ground in Iraq and allowing al- Qaida to regroup to its strongest level since September 11, according to intelligence estimates. It has stretched our military thin, wearing down troops serving extended

tours, depleting our Reserves and National Guard, and compromising national security with a diminished preparedness to tackle other international threats. It has cost us dearly in national treasure and, most importantly, precious lives.

Going down this road has not brought stability to Iraq nor made us any safer at home. It is clear we are being driven down a dead-end street by an administration without a roadmap for a lasting peace. Now they expect the American people to buy the no-exit occupation they are selling, the deployment of more than 130,000 American troops for as far in the future as the eye can see. No end in sight?

Today we are living with the consequences of the administration's failed policy. Over 3,700 troops have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war, including 97 servicemembers with ties to the State of New Jersey. We have now spent over $450 billion on the war in Iraq, with a burn rate of $10 billion a month. Frankly, I never believed the administration's estimate that the so-called surge would only cost $5.6 billion, and these new numbers only prove once again we have been misled.

Despite the meager improvements in the Anbar Province cited in General Petraeus's report last week, the situation in Iraq continues to grow worse. Sectarian violence surrounding Baghdad has surged this past week in connection with the holy month of Ramadan. At least 22 people have been killed in a series of bombings and shootings in Diyala and Kirkuk. Moreover, GEN William Caldwell has reported there is evidence Sunni extremist groups in Iraq have been receiving funds from Iran. In terms of reconstruction, oil production in Iraq is still lower than it was before the war 4\1/2\ years ago, and Baghdad is getting approximately 7 hours of electricity a day, significantly less than before the war.

How can we be expected to support a war plan about which every independent report portrays a situation of chaos far away from stability or political reconciliation? In fact, according to the latest report card on Iraqi progress, the President's war policy is still flunking. Even if the debatable metrics used to compile the report are solid, half of the benchmarks have not even seen a minimal amount of progress. Now that it is clear the benchmarks are perhaps impossible to achieve with our current strategy, we see a concerted effort to play them down in terms of their importance.

In General Petraeus's testimony, it was evident. The original goals of the escalation, to give the Iraqi Government and political factions breathing room to achieve reconciliation, have not been met. The benchmarks are now an afterthought and success is being measured in different and less stringent terms. It is a recurring pattern that no longer fools anyone: Make a bold proclamation, fail to meet expectations, fail to meet legally established benchmarks brought in by the Iraqi Government as well as our own, passed in law by the Congress, signed by the President, change the discussion. Moving the goalposts may appease some in this Chamber, but it does not help us achieve a lasting peace that is ultimately more important.

When all else fails, the President and his supporters often respond to rightful criticism of their disastrous war plan with a question meant to change the subject: What are your ideas? What they fail to realize is a majority of Congress and an overwhelming majority of the American public have long been unified behind a course of action that we believe gives us the best chance for success and security, both in Iraq and at home. That is the purpose of this amendment. A responsible transition of our mission and withdrawal of our troops from Iraq on one hand gives a sense of urgency to the Iraqi Government and security forces that is currently absent. Until they actually believe we will not be there forever, they will not take control of their own country. At the same time, bringing our troops home allows our overburdened military to regroup. It allows us to have the capability to respond to other threats in the world that might arise. It allows the replenishment of our National Guard which is currently stretched so thin that response to disasters in the homeland has been affected. Yesterday it was announced that half the Army National Guard in my State of New Jersey--that is 6,200 soldiers--will be deployed as soon as next year, almost 2 years before the deployment was originally scheduled. That will leave our National Guard at half strength in a State at serious risk for a terrorist attack. That is 6,200 soldiers taken away from their loved ones to be tossed into another country's civil war.

Most important about our plan and this amendment, it allows American families who have been separated and stressed by an ill-conceived war to be made whole again. The alternative is an endless occupation in Iraq with more American blood spilled and no light at the end of the tunnel.

Throughout this war many have drawn the obvious parallels between this failed war policy and another quagmire 40 years ago. The comparison in some respects is valid and important. It is said those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Because I fear history is being repeated, I wish to draw upon the words of Robert Kennedy, who served in this Chamber and delivered this statement about the Vietnam War in March of 1968:

We are entitled to ask--we are required to ask--how many

more men, how many more lives, how much more destruction will

be asked, to provide the military victory that is always just

around the corner, to pour into this bottomless pit of our

dreams?

But this question the Administration does not and cannot

answer, it has no answer. It has no answer--none but the

ever-expanding use of military force and the lives of our

brave soldiers in a conflict where military force has failed

to solve anything in the past.

Our past teaches us our current struggle and our current predicament are best solved by a new course. Future generations will judge this war policy and the choice to continue it indefinitely harshly. They will still be paying the price. We have another opportunity today to write an end to this sad chapter, to turn the page and recommit to strengthening the military and targeting Osama bin Laden. We have the opportunity to change history for the better.

I urge my colleagues to begin that change today and vote for a new course in Iraq by supporting the Feingold amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my friend the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Ken Salazar, who I have the pleasure of serving with as cochair of the Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force.

As we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, I would like to spend a moment talking about the landmark 1947 discrimination case Mendez v. Westminster, which established the legal precedent on which Brown v. Board of Education was based. It is an extremely important piece of our civil rights history, but sadly, it is often overlooked. Senator Salazar and I would like to remedy that.

Let me illustrate the importance of this case. I want you to picture two students, both equally bright, eager to learn, and full of possibility. One student sits in a beautiful new school building surrounded by the best books, a good heating system, and a clean cafeteria. The other sits in a dilapidated old shed with torn and tattered books that are far too old. The heat doesn't work because there's no furnace, and the cafeteria doesn't exist. As you all know, this was what occurred in towns throughout our country for far too long before Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate was inherently unequal.

Sylvia Mendez, a victim of separate but equal before Brown v. Board of Education, was only 8 years old when she and her brothers were prohibited from attending a Whites-only school in Westminster, CA, in Orange County. Her father, along with five other Mexican-American fathers whose children were forced to attend subpar, segregated schools, challenged school segregation in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, claiming their children were victims of unconstitutional discrimination. This historic court battle ultimately ended school segregation in California and set in motion the legal process that would eventually end school segregation in America.

I thank Senator Ken Salazar for the work he does on the Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force on behalf of Latinos. My colleague understands, like I do, that we must not only celebrate the accomplishments of Latinos but turn to the future in to ensure that Latinos are protected by our laws and able to achieve the American dream. Sylvia Mendez, who has become a premier civil rights advocate and leader as a result of this case, is a clear example of what it means to achieve that dream.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Webb- Hagel amendment. Both of our colleagues have served our country not only in the Senate but also in uniform, and they have done so honorably. So they speak from experience, and I, for one, do not question their sincerity of purpose. I do not know how every Member of the Senate will decide on how they will cast their vote, but I do not question their sincerity or the purpose of what they are driving at.

This is about preserving our troops, enhancing their ability, and in the long term being able to continue to enlist people who want to serve their country, who bear the overwhelming burden of the national security of the United States by a small percentage of the population. That is what I believe Senator Webb is doing, and that is why I join him strongly in support of his and Senator Hagel's amendment.

This amendment provides an important opportunity to recognize the courageous efforts of our men and women in uniform. This amendment provides a critical opportunity to ensure the care and safety of our troops--the care and safety of our troops--now, but I would argue not only now but for the long term. To those who believe this amendment is only about now, to change the current course of events, I believe the amendment has longstanding import now and for the long term. It sets our policy as to where we are going to be headed in the deployment of troops--the respites they need, the ability for us to sustain a voluntary Army under all of the circumstances.

This amendment provides a great opportunity for us in the Senate to ignore politics and work together on behalf of our troops. This amendment simply says that our troops should have at least--at least-- the same time at home as they spend deployed abroad. It ensures that no unit, including the National Guard, which is clearly citizen soldiers who have been asked to do far beyond what many of them thought they were ever going to be called upon to do on behalf of their Nation--they would get the same treatment.

This amendment simply says that after 4\1/2\ years of bravely fighting for our country, we must honor the sacrifice of the troops and their families. This amendment simply says we must make sure we are taking care--underline ``taking care''--of our troops. We believe we must protect our troops fighting in combat now, just as we must take care of our veterans when they return home from combat.

Let me be clear. I do not believe this amendment ties the hands of the administration in the case of a clear threat to our national security. Senator Webb has been responsive in providing a fair and reasonable waiver for the President, as well as a waiver for those individuals in service who want to volunteer to return early. If they want to return, if they feel they are ready to return, they will be able to do so and provide the continued leadership they have been providing. I am sure many may. But the bottom line is, there are many who may not feel they can do that. So, therefore, their ability to perform at the optimum is not being preserved under the present circumstances.

This amendment also responds to specific concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and other military leaders. It allows the Department of Defense time for a transition period, for an implementation period that is well within the scope that is necessary. It also provides a specific exemption for special operations forces since the nature of their deployment schedule is much different.

So I think Senator Webb has listened and responded since the last time he offered this amendment, as has Senator Hagel.

Now, unfortunately, the war in Iraq has taken a terrible toll on our military. I am deeply concerned about our ground forces. I am deeply concerned about severe mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress syndrome, which comes out of extended and repeated deployments. I am deeply concerned about our ability to retain experienced servicemembers and our ability to recruit new forces.

Clearly, if someone is looking at whether to be engaged, in addition to their great desire to serve their country, especially if they have family, they are going to be looking at: Well, how are these deployments taking place? Are they taking place in a way to respond to my desire to serve but also to be able to sustain my family? That is why we have to adopt this amendment. It is about now and the long term.

Some here have argued that Congress should not interfere. But the Founding Fathers put it right up there early in the Constitution. They did not wait for various later articles; they put it right up there in article I. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution is where they gave the Congress the right, the power ``to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.''

I have heard other statutory references here, but none of those statutory references have the power to undermine the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme. It comes first above all other acts. So, therefore, the Founders understood how important it was for the Congress to have the role ``to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,'' and they put it up early in the Constitution to make it very clear. Those who wish to ignore or reject that provision of the Constitution, in my mind, undermine the Constitution by doing so.

This President often acts as if the only role for the Congress is to provide a blank check for his failed war policy. I believe he is definitely wrong in believing that Congress's only role is to provide a blank check. That is not the role of the Congress. As a matter of fact, that would be an abdication of the duties and responsibilities of the Congress in its role under the Constitution. We have a fiduciary responsibility to the American people, both in national treasures and, most importantly, in lives. We have a responsibility to the men and women in uniform.

This amendment before us reflects the reality on the ground and the will of the American people, but most importantly the welfare of those sacrificing the most. I have heard a lot from our colleagues in the time I have been in the Senate, and before in the House, about supporting our troops. Well, we are providing here a plan to fully support our troops who volunteer to put their lives on the line for our country. Senator Webb has referred to the Military Officers Associations' unusual movement or action of supporting this amendment. I think we need to listen to those who serve, especially when they act out of the norm and say: We believe this is in the interests of those men and women who serve. And it comes from the association of those men and women who are actively engaged in serving. I have so often heard our colleagues say: Let's listen to those on the ground. Well, this is a reflection of those in boots in service. Our brave troops have answered the call of duty. Let us now answer the call to do what is right by them.

I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment. It goes to the heart of how we truly honor those people who are serving our country, sacrificing for our country, and in my mind, when we talk about supporting the troops, making sure our long-term security can be preserved and enhanced goes to the very core of how we are going to treat them in their service. That is why I strongly support Senator Webb's and Senator Hagel's amendment, and I hope all of our colleagues will do so as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor Montclair State University of New Jersey as they celebrate 100 years of service to the students of our State.

The 100th anniversary of Montclair State University is a wonderful cause for celebration. However, the real celebration lies in the extraordinary success of the faculty and administration of Montclair State University in preparing some of New Jersey's finest students to be the next leaders of this country and to succeed in a global economy.

While much has changed since Montclair State University first opened its doors as a normal school in 1908, the university has remained true to its mission of providing an exceptional educational experience to a diverse student body that is reflective of the population of New Jersey. Montclair State University has become one of the leading educational institutions in our State, quickly turning into the second- largest and the fastest-growing university in New Jersey.

Montclair State University is leading the way to help develop the next generation of teachers by training promising students to be successful, innovative teachers in schools across the State. The university has also maintained an active and positive role in the local community, by bridging education and community service.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me as I honor Montclair State University for its extraordinary success in providing 100 years of world-class education to New Jersey's students and for providing service to our communities.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, first of all, thank you for taking some time and presiding in the chair so I can make this statement.

Last year, I made a very difficult decision. I voted for the Military Commissions Act because I believed it would make our Nation safer and help us fight the war on terrorism. I did not support the bill, however, without reservations.

I said at the time it was not the law I would have written. To the contrary, I supported the bill with the understanding we would go back and fix some of the problems that remained unsolved. Tomorrow, the Senate has an opportunity to fix one of the most glaring of those problems, the failure to provide detainees with the right to habeas corpus.

A right to habeas corpus was a fundamental right in the eyes of our Founding Fathers. It was seen as a mechanism for accountability within our Government, giving prisoners a way to challenge detentions that were unlawful or unconstitutional.

A right to habeas corpus has remained a cornerstone of our criminal justice system since our very beginning as a Nation. It continues to be reaffirmed time and time again by every court in the land. Granting all prisoners the right to petition for habeas corpus is something that makes our Nation special and sets us apart.

Now, I am sure many Americans may wonder: Well, what is habeas corpus? What is the big fuss about this habeas corpus thing? Well, let me try to explain.

Habeas corpus gives a person, a citizen, people, the right to ensure they are being held by the Government lawfully, that they were not the victim of malfeasance or misfeasance on the part of the Government. It is not an easy standard to meet, and it is not taken lightly by the court system.

To make a case for habeas corpus requires a significant amount of proof that a detention of that individual violates the laws of the United States. Let me say that one more time. Proving that you are entitled to relief, proving that you are entitled to a writ of habeas corpus by the court, is not an easy task.

The claim is usually denied. Only those who truly deserve the writ are able to obtain it. I say this to reassure those who may feel that granting detainees the right to habeas corpus, as the amendment would do, would quickly let loose those who would then attack our country and our citizens. That simply will not happen.

What will happen is those detainees who are being held unlawfully, if there are any who are being held unlawfully, who are being denied their basic human rights, will have a chance to make their case in court. They will, for the first time, be able to argue they are being held without any evidence of wrongdoing. They will be able to argue, possibly, they were tortured for a confession that is simply not true.

In short, they will be allowed to hold our great Nation to the standard of fairness, lawfulness, and decency that our Founding Fathers established when they penned the U.S. Constitution.

Some people may not believe detainees are entitled to such a basic right. They argue these people may not be U.S. citizens; that they do not believe the Constitution provides them with any protection or any guarantees.

I disagree. I would ask those people one thing: If the terrorists convince us to throw away the very rights that make us free, the very rights that make our Nation what we uniquely are, does that not mean the terrorists have won?

If we believe in the rule of law, and if we believe in a system of justice, we must give all people detained by our Government the right to challenge that detention. Our Government must play by the rules. It must detain people who are supposed to be detained, and it must be prepared to make that case in a court of law.

The United States can do better than depending on indefinite, unchallengeable detentions to imprison an individual suspected to be a terrorist. We do not need shortcuts to keep our Nation safe.

We can fight the war on terror and respect human rights at the same time. What makes America worthy of fighting for and dying for is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It sets us apart from the rest of the world, and we cannot permit its erosion or its undermining. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights need to be preserved.

Therefore, I intend to fully support the Leahy-Specter amendment that will be offered tomorrow to restore habeas rights to detainees. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.