Floor Statements

Mr. President, Senator Howard Metzenbaum was a progressive visionary whose strong support for America's workers and consumers left a lasting mark on our Nation. His determination to stand for a more just America in the Senate was an inspiration to me and everyone with whom he served. His influence and the example he set still resound strongly in the Senate chamber today.

I deeply appreciate how much support and guidance Senator Metzenbaum gave to me when I came to the Senate in 1993. He had a wonderful way of bringing progressives in Congress together, and I will always be very grateful for that.

He was a force to be reckoned with on the Senate floor--earning the nickname ``Senator No'' through ingenious tactics to stop legislation that threatening to hurt American workers and consumers. He was known for never backing down from a Senate floor fight, and his opposition spelled trouble for almost any bill.

America's workers had no better friend and ally in Congress than Senator Metzenbaum, who sponsored the law requiring 60 days advance notice for a plant closing. Whenever Congress acts to help those American workers struggling in a difficult economy, we are building on Senator Metzenbaum's legacy.

He also took on Washington's most powerful interests in an unrelenting

push to stop the wasteful spending that destroys the public's trust in elected officials. In this way, former Senator Metzenbaum laid the ground work for those of us who continue the fight to rein in wasteful government spending. His later service as the chairman of the Consumer Federation of America was a testament to his strong commitment to consumer advocacy.

Howard Metzenbaum was such a distinguished Member of this body, both because he served the people of Ohio so well, and because he set such an outstanding example of courage and commitment to those of us who had the privilege to serve with him. I join my colleagues, the State of Ohio, and the entire Nation in paying tribute to this great American.

Mr. President, I was pleased to hear about the recent arrest of Viktor Bout, one of the most notorious arms dealers in the world. Last week, Mr. Bout, was arrested in Thailand by a U.S. sting operation in collaboration with Thai authorities which apprehended him as he was allegedly trying to sell weapons to the FARC the main Colombian rebel group and an organization that has also been placed on the U.S. terrorist list.

If Bout is charged and convicted in Thailand, he faces 10 years in prison, while if the U.S. is able to extradite him he will face 15 years. I certainly recognize the need to ensure a free and fair trial for Mr. Bout that is his right but I am nonetheless pleased that after numerous attempts he has finally been arrested. For years, Bout has been able to evade law enforcement officers around the world, despite investigations by the U.N., the media, and even intelligence sources that indicate his complicity in arms smuggling and his role in fueling some of the world's most brutal wars in some cases by providing weapons to both sides of the conflict.

Despite an outstanding 2002 Interpol warrant, until last week he was able to successfully dodge arrest.

Mr. President, Viktor Bout benefited from the unrestrained capitalism and weak institutions that emerged in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. He used that tumultuous period for his own personal gain, as he built an aircraft fleet, purchased cheaply from the stockpiles of discarded Cold War weapons, and sought out clients around the globe to help perpetuate his diabolical money-making schemes. He exploited the dearth of arms control initiatives in fledging countries and recognized that the lack of an international framework would serve his interests well.

According to Douglas Farah, one of the authors of the recently published ``Merchant of Death,'' ``[it] is highly unlikely [Bout] could have flown aircraft out of Russia and acquired huge amounts of weapons from Soviet arsenals without the direct protection of Russian intelligence, and, given his background, the [Russian military intelligence] seems the most likely candidate.'' Indeed, it is likely that such assistance was needed to create such a vast empire.

Mr. President, this empire had many and varied clients. In fact, during the early years of the Iraq war, Bout's aircrafts were used to support U.S. Government contractor and subcontractor work. I inquired about the use of these aircrafts at a 2004 Iraq hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and learned shortly thereafter that both the State and Defense Departments had done business with Bout. Not long after my inquiry, this business relationship was purportedly terminated and Bout's assets were frozen by the Treasury Department. But despite this corrective action, Bout's work remained uninhibited and, according to some credible reports, he continued to associate with other entities of the U.S. Government.

Bout was clearly a savvy and dependable broker, but he used these talents to do business with some of the most unsavory characters in the world. The U.N. investigative team which pursued Bout found that he was pouring small arms and ammunition into Afghanistan, Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo for years--enabling millions of innocent people to be slaughtered and supporting carnage at unprecedented levels.

Bout was able to circumvent both national and international arms controls by exploiting holes in the system. Despite the arrest warrants, asset freezes, and international embargoes, he was able to operate with impunity because of the lack of concerted international cooperation within the arms control and law enforcement arenas. Last week's arrest is a testament to the importance of that global cooperation and a reminder that as our world continues to globalize we must work together in order to hold individuals like Bout accountable for their actions.

Mr. President, since independence in 1980, politics in Zimbabwe had been dominated by one party and indeed one man President and head of the ruling ZANU-PF, Robert Mugabe. In February 2000, Zimbabwe's citizens delivered a blow to President Mugabe when they rejected his party's proposed new constitution, and then in June's legislative elections, even without access to the state-run media and without significant financing, opposition candidates managed to win 58 of 150 parliamentary seats, up from just 3.

In 2000, I joined many in Zimbabwe and the international community in hoping that this victory would mark the end of the ruling party's stranglehold on the state and herald the opening of democratic space and opportunities in a country that has seen repression for too long. Instead, Mr. Mugabe and his party responded to these defeats by tightening their grip on power. In 2000, international headlines warned of ``Zimbabwe's unprecedented economic and social crisis'' with unemployment at 50 percent and almost 60 percent inflation, and the 2000 elections were marred by the harassment of opposition candidates and supporters in which at least 25 were killed.

These numbers pale in comparison with the devastating economic and political situations in Zimbabwe today. According to official figures, annual inflation now tops 100,000 percent with 80 percent employment despite the fact that at least one quarter of the population has fled the country. Meanwhile, the harassment and intimidation of the independent media, opposition politicians, civil society leaders, and human rights advocates has become more widespread and systematic.

Exactly 1 year ago today, when opposition party activists and members of civil society attempted to hold a peaceful prayer meeting in response to President Mugabe's announcement that he would seek reelection, they were brutally assaulted by ZANU-PF police officers, security forces, and youth militia. More than 50 were arrested, at least 1 killed, and many badly beaten.

On this somber anniversary, I appeal to political leaders here in the United States, in Africa, and around the world to send a strong signal to President Mugabe and his supporters that we want to see Zimbabwe recover from its current crisis and we will be watching as the unprecedented simultaneous presidential and legislative general elections are held on March 29. The violent repression, and even coercive harassment, we saw in March 2007 is unacceptable and will have negative consequences both internally and externally.

For years, I have been frustrated and saddened by the hastening decline of this country. The courageous, patriotic citizens of Zimbabwe who resist the state's repression, even at enormous personal cost, must know that the world supports them, and the country's corrupt and tyrannical rulers must be told that their time is up.

Although it will not happen this month, I hope that someday soon the people of Zimbabwe will be given a chance to freely express their will in a genuine democratic process that is free from manipulation, intimidation, and coercion.

Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana would permit parties sued by State attorneys general under authority of this bill to recover attorneys' fees and costs if they are successful. This amendment would undermine the purpose of giving those State officers that authority. We want their help in protecting the citizens of their States. To create the specter of a large cost to the taxpayer if a case is unsuccessful will only deter aggressive enforcement action.

There are, of course, situations where litigants against the government are given the chance to collect attorneys' fees if they prevail in a lawsuit. As both a State legislator in Wisconsin and a U.S. Senator I have supported legislation like the Equal Access to Justice Act, ``EAJA'', which gives this right to small businesses and individuals of modest means. I have even introduced a bill in several previous Congresses to amend EAJA to make it easier to collect attorneys' fees.

That EAJA statute, however, applies to a limited class of individuals and small businesses. Whether or not we should extend EAJA to apply in those cases where State attorneys general are acting on behalf of the Federal Government, we certainly should not impose a broader rule on the Attorneys General than we currently apply to Federal agencies. For these reasons, I oppose the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the political situation in Ethiopia. The U.S.-Ethiopian partnership is an incredibly important one--perhaps one of the more significant on the continent given not only our longstanding history but also the increasingly strategic nature of our cooperation in recent years. Ethiopia sits on the Horn of Africa--perhaps one of the roughest neighborhoods in the world, with Somalia a failed state and likely safe haven for terrorists, Eritrea an inaccessible authoritarian regime that exacerbates conflicts throughout the region, Sudan a genocidal regime, and now Kenya descending into crisis. By contrast, Ethiopia seems relatively stable with its growing economy and robust poverty reduction programs.

Indeed, one look at the deteriorating situation on the Horn of Africa and it is clear just how essential our relationship with Ethiopia really is. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's approach to strengthening and building bilateral ties with Ethiopia has been shortsighted and narrow. As in other parts of the world, the administration's counterterrorism agenda dominates the relationship, while poor governance and human rights concerns get a pass.

Genuine democratic progress in Ethiopia is essential if we are to have a healthy and positive bilateral relationship. We cannot allow a myopic focus on one element of security to obscure our understanding of what is really occurring in Ethiopia. Rather than place our support in one man, we must invest in Ethiopia's institutions and its people to create a stable, sustainable political system. As we are seeing right now in Kenya, political repression breeds deep-seated resentment, which can have destructive and far-reaching consequences. The United States and the international community cannot support one policy objective at the expense of all others. To do so not only hurts the credibility of America and the viability of our democratic message, but it severely jeopardizes our national security.

I am seriously concerned about the direction Ethiopia is headed-- recurringbecause according to many credible accounts, the political crisis that has been quietly growing and deepening over the past few years may be coming to a head. For years, faced with calls for political or economic reforms, the Ethiopian government has displayed a troubling tendency to react with alarmingly oppressive and disproportionate tactics.

For example, in 2003, we received reports of massacres of civilians in the Gambella region of Ethiopia, which touched off a wave of violence and destruction that has yet to truly loosen its grip on the region. At that time, hundreds of lives were lost, tens of thousands were displaced, and many homes, schools, and businesses throughout the area were destroyed. Credible observers agree that Ethiopian security forces were heavily involved in some of the most serious abuses and more than 5 years later no one has been held accountable and there have been no reparations.

The national elections held in May 2005 were a severe step back for Ethiopia's democratic progress. In advance of the elections, the Ethiopian Government expelled representatives of the three democracy- promotion organizations supported by USAID to assist the Ethiopian election commission, facilitate dialogue among political parties and election authorities, train pollwatchers, and assist civil society in

the creation of a code of conduct. This expulsion was the first time in 20 years that a government has rejected such assistance, and the organizations have still not returned to Ethiopia because they do not feel an environment exists where they can truly undertake their objectives.

Despite massive controversy surrounding the polls, it is notable that opposition parties still won an unprecedented number of parliamentary seats. Their pursuit of transparency and democracy was again thwarted, however, when they tried to register their concerns about the election process. In one incident, peaceful demonstrations by opposition members and their supporters in Ethiopia's capital of Addis Ababa were met with disproportionate and lethal force that killed more than 30 people and injured over 100. In another incident, the Ethiopian government arrested thousands of peacefully protesting citizens who took to the streets in support of the opposition.

The systemic nature of this crackdown was revealed in credible reports coming from the Oromia and Amhara regions that federal police were unacceptably threatening, beating and detaining opposition supporters. Indeed, international human rights groups documented that regional authorities were exaggerating their concerns about armed insurgency and ``terrorism'' to try to justify the torture, imprisonment and sustained harassment of critics and even ordinary citizens.

This tendency to portray political dissent as extremist uprisings has been repeated more recently with regards to what is being characterized by some as a brutal counterinsurgency operation led by Ethiopia's military in the Ogaden, a long-neglected region that borders Somalia. Certainly I recognize the serious security concerns in this region, made worse by the porous borders of the failed state just a stone's throw away.

But it is precisely because Ethiopia is our partner in the fight against al-Qaida, its affiliates and allies, that I am so concerned about what I understand to be a massive military crackdown that does not differentiate between rebel groups and civilians. While I am sure there are few clean hands when it comes to fighting in the Ogaden region, the reports I have received about the Ethiopian government's illicit military tactics and human rights violations are of great concern.

I have been hearing similar reports of egregious human rights abuses being committed in Somalia, about which I am gravely concerned. When I visited Ethiopia just over a year, I urged the Prime Minister not to send his troops into Somalia because I thought it might make instability there worse, not better. Tragically, more than a year later, it seems my worst fears have been realized as tens of thousands of people have fled their homes, humanitarian access is at an all time low, and there are numerous reports of increasing brutality towards civilians caught in the crossfire. In the interest of its own domestic security, Ethiopia is contributing to increased regional instability.

What troubles me most is that the reports of Ethiopia's military coming out of the Ogaden and Mogadishu join a long list of increasingly repressive actions taken by the Ethiopian government. The Bush administration must not turn a blind eye to the aggressive--and recurring--tactics being utilized by one of our key allies to stifle dissent.

I certainly welcome the role the Bush administration has played in helping to secure the release of many--although not all--of the individuals thrown in jail in the aftermath of the 2005 elections. I welcome the Embassy's engagement with opposition members and their efforts to encourage Ethiopian officials to create more political space for alternative views, independent media, and civil society. These are all important steps but they do not go far enough.

The administration's efforts at backroom diplomacy are not working. I understand and respect the value of quiet diplomacy, but sometimes we reach the point where such a strategy is rendered ineffective--when private rhetorical commitments are repeatedly broken by unacceptable public actions. For example, recent reports that the Ethiopian government is jamming our Voice of America radio broadcasts should be condemned in no uncertain terms, not shrugged off.

The Bush administration must live up to its own rhetoric in promoting democracy and human rights by making it clear that we do not--and will not--tolerate the Ethiopian government's abuses and illegal behavior. It must demonstrate that there are consequences for the repressive and often brutal tactics employed by the Ethiopian government, which are moving Ethiopia farther away from--not closer to--the goal of becoming a legitimate democracy and are increasingly a source of regional instability.

I am afraid that the failure of this administration to acknowledge the internal crisis in Ethiopia is emblematic of its narrow-minded agenda, which will have repercussions for years to come if not addressed immediately. Worse yet, without a balanced U.S. policy that addresses both short- and long-term challenges to stability in Ethiopia, we run the risk of contributing to the groundswell of proxy wars rippling across the Horn--whether in Somalia, eastern Sudan, or even the Ogaden region. And those wars, in turn, by contributing to greater insecurity on the Horn and providing opportunities for forces that oppose U.S. interests, pose a direct threat to our own national security as well.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin for his excellent remarks and for his leadership on this issue. It has been very helpful during a very tough battle that we have to keep fighting.

We had an interesting debate yesterday on the two bills I have offered with the majority leader. I know some of my colleagues expressed concern that we were spending too much time on this issue. Well I, for one, am pleased we are able to discuss one of the most pressing problems facing this country. Maybe now that they have allowed us to have this debate, the Republicans will allow us to actually consider and vote on these bills.

While I appreciate the chance to have this debate, I would like to take this chance to respond to some of the statements that have been made on the other side. I have actually been accused of ``legislating defeat in Iraq'' or other variations on that theme, and somehow trying to micromanage the job of the commanders. Actually, we have already accomplished our military mission in Iraq: Removing Saddam Hussein. I am interested in achieving victory in the global effort to combat al- Qaida. We have to make a choice. The Army Chief of Staff has been clear that ``the numbers of forces we have committed in Iraq now increases our level of strategic risk.''

So what does that mean? It means we must choose between letting the Iraqi people resolve their sectarian disputes on their own or, on the other hand, exhausting our troops in Iraq and losing ground in the global fight against al-Qaida.

Senator Inhofe said my bill demanding a strategy to defeat al-Qaida wasn't needed because we already have a plan to defeat al-Qaida. He failed to explain why, though. If we already have a strategy to defeat al-Qaida, why is it that al-Qaida has regenerated and reconstituted itself and is planning more attacks on our homeland? Admiral Mullen has been quite clear that under our current strategy, Afghanistan is a second priority where we only ``do what we can''--do what we can. In other words, we are so bogged down in Iraq, we don't have the forces to respond to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. If this is a strategy, it sure isn't working, which is why the majority leader and I want to require the administration to develop a plan that prioritizes the fight against al-Qaida and protecting ourselves at home over an endless war in Iraq.

Senators Inhofe and Lieberman have claimed that we do already have political reconciliation in Iraq and that we have seen benchmark legislation in the Iraqi Parliament. Yes, a debaathification law has passed, an amnesty law has passed, and the provincial powers election power law passed. Yes, we have seen movement in the Iraqi Parliament after waiting for more than 4 years. It is my great hope that the laws recently passed will bring the Sunnis fully into the political process. But as we well know, passing a law is one thing, but actually seeing it successfully implemented is another, particularly given the country's weak national government.

I think national reconciliation still looks far off. The passage of what the administration is calling ``benchmark'' laws does not ensure society-wide sectarian reconciliation. There are still significant concerns about how the local efforts we have supported to bring about declining violence will actually be integrated into the national framework. To illustrate this, the Sunni Awakening has taken tens of thousands of former insurgent Sunni militia fighters and provided them with U.S. funding in exchange for helping combat al-Qaida and Iraq. But to what extent we can rely on the long-term loyalties of these fighters is a very open question. We do know, however, that this policy actually risks increasing distrust between the local Sunnis and the national government, which of course is led primarily by Shiites.

I would just like to ask, if Iraqis have agreed to political reconciliation, as Senator Inhofe suggested, well then doesn't that mean we have achieved the objectives of the surge and we can start bringing the troops home? When does the other side think we can bring the troops home? They never talk about that. Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? One hundred years? What kind of success is that?

After more than 4 years of waiting for the Iraqi Government to make progress, we have lost nearly 4,000 Americans, with no end in sight and no clear path for a reconciliation that incorporates all aspects and elements of Iraqi society.

Now, another argument we have heard is it has been suggested that Iraq would collapse or that genocide would occur if U.S. troops leave. Of course, that assumes our military presence there is actually helping the situation rather than simply postponing an inevitable day of reckoning. If we bring our troops out of this quagmire, Iraqis and their neighbors would have to confront the crisis head on. Now, I am not calling for the United States to abandon Iraq, but there is simply no way we can fix the mess we have made without a legitimate political settlement.

A U.S. redeployment would actually put new pressure on Iraqis and on countries in the region to engage productively and to make the decision as to whether a full-fledged civil war is really in the interests of Iraq or its neighboring countries. I suspect--I really do feel strongly about this, having looked at this issue for many years in both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Intelligence Committee--that if these countries were faced with that decision, they would actually try harder to reconcile their differences peacefully rather than further ignite tensions.

Some Members of this body seem to believe the war in Iraq is between U.S. troops on the one side and al-Qaida on the other. That is not what is going on. In fact, that is dangerous, wishful thinking. The recent patterns of violence in Iraq actually confirm what the intelligence community has said all along: that the war in Iraq is sectarian and intrasectarian and far from the oversimplified ``us versus them'' that proponents of an endless military engagement in Iraq continue to describe. Moreover, in mixed areas such as Mosul, violence is actually increasing. And in the south, the increased violence is among Shiites, and reduction in areas such as Anbar, which is almost entirely Sunni or in Baghdad, where sectarian cleansing has already occurred, do not represent a diminishment of the underlying tensions that could explode at any time.

Contrary to what we heard yesterday, Iraq simply is not the central

front on the war on terrorism. To the extent to which there is such a front in this very global conflict, it is clearly Pakistan and Afghanistan. No rational reading of press reports, independent studies or our own intelligence could possibly conclude otherwise. While the administration has focused on Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. That sounds like a big mistake. That sounds like a real strategic error in an international battle against terrorism. Yet far too many people in the administration and my colleagues somehow believe Iraq is what it is all about. What a terrible strategic mistake.

Early this month, the DNI testified before Congress that the central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is al-Qaida's most dangerous component. And a few months ago, the DNI again repeated the intelligence community's assessment that over the last 2 years ``Al Qaeda's central leadership has been able to regenerate the core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks in the Homeland''-- in the homeland, our homeland, our country, the United States of America.

The DNI also testified that al-Qaida ``is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.: The identification, training, and positioning of operatives for an attack in the Homeland''--in this country.

Meanwhile, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas--or FATA region-- in Pakistan is serving as a staging ground for al-Qaida in support of the Taliban and providing it with a base similar to the one it used to have across the border in Afghanistan.

Over the past year, as we all know, we have seen an unprecedented rise of suicide bombings in Pakistan. The Taliban is gaining ground in Afghanistan, and while we may be sending an additional 3,200 marines to Afghanistan in the near future, we have been fighting for far too long there with too few soldiers and too few reconstruction funds. The price of that neglect is a dramatic resurgence of militants that must be urgently addressed.

Yesterday, a Washington Post article noted that:

More foreign soldiers and Afghan civilians died in Taliban-

related fighting last year than in any year since U.S. and

coalition forces ousted the extremist Islamic militia, which

ruled most of the country, in 2001. Military officials expect

the coming year to be just as deadly, if not more so, as the

Taliban becomes more adept militarily and more formidable in

its deployment of suicide bombers and roadside explosives.

With the Joint Chiefs saying: ``In Iraq we do what we must and in Afghanistan we do what we can,'' it is no wonder Afghanistan is teetering on the edge. It has been neglected, shoved to the back burner so the President can pursue an open-ended war in Iraq.

I remind my colleagues it was from Afghanistan, not Iraq, that the 9/ 11 attacks were planned, and it was under the Taliban regime, which is once again gaining ground, that al-Qaida was able to flourish so freely. This is the actual position, this is the actual situation in terms of this global fight against those who attacked us on 9/11. It is not all about Iraq.

Al-Qaida affiliates from Africa to Southeast Asia pose a significant terrorist threat. While we have been so myopically fixated on Iraq, the threat from an al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa has grown and now, according again to the testimony of the Director of National Intelligence, ``represents a significant threat to the United States and European interests in the region.''

Since its merger with al-Qaida in September 2006, it has expanded its targets to include the United States, United Nations, and other interests, and it likely got a further boost when al-Qaida leadership announced last November that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group united with al-Qaida under AQIM's leadership. Its possible reach covers Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania, Libya, and other countries. Meanwhile, it is using deadly tactics that suggest it is acquiring knowledge and help from the war in Iraq, basically a training ground for those who get exported to attack us.

Al-Qaida has affiliates around the world--in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Lebanon, where al-Qaida poses a ``growing threat,'' the Horn of Africa, and Southeast Asia. And a few weeks ago, there were more arrests in Europe. None, not one of these developments has been prevented by the war in Iraq.

We cannot ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al- Qaida is and will continue to be a global terrorist organization with dangerous affiliates around the world. The administration claims al- Qaida in Iraq may be on the run, but al-Qaida has not abandoned its efforts to fight us globally. In fact, we are watching al-Qaida strengthen and develop its affiliates around the world, while we remain bogged down in Iraq. How foolish can we be to allow them to reconstitute all over the world as they watch us unable to extricate ourselves from a mistake which was, of course, going into Iraq the way we did.

We need a robust military presence and effective reconstruction program in Afghanistan. We need to build strong partnerships where al- Qaida and its affiliates are operating--across North Africa, in Southeast Asia, and along the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we need to address the root causes of the terrorist threat, not just rely on military power to get the job done.

I would like to turn now briefly to the impact of the Iraq war on our military and National Guard. There is nobody in the Senate who cares more about this than the Presiding Officer. I will start by repeating what GEN George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said yesterday in congressional testimony:

The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war

have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current

fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to

properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our

flexibility for an uncertain future.

Many U.S. troops currently in Iraq, as we all know, are now in their third or fourth tours of duty. Approximately 95 percent of the Army National Guard's combat battalions and special operations units have been mobilized since 9/11.

Mr. President, 1.4 million Americans have served in Iraq and over 420,000 have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I said before, nearly 4,000 of our men and women have been killed in Iraq, and over 27,000 have been wounded.

The Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without seriously damaging the military. Young officers are leaving the service at an alarming rate.

Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since the Vietnam war. Every active Army brigade currently not deployed is unprepared to perform its wartime mission.

More than two-thirds of Active Duty Army brigades are unready for missions because of manpower and equipment shortages, most of which, of course, can be attributed to Iraq.

There are insufficient Reserves to respond to additional conflicts or crises around the world.

This failure to prioritize correctly has left vital missions unattended. Natural disaster response, U.S. border security, and international efforts to combat al-Qaida are all suffering due to the strain on military forces caused by poor strategy and failed leadership in Iraq.

In addition, thousands of our troops have, as we well know, returned home with invisible wounds, such as PTSD and TBI, traumatic brain injury, which will have a long-term impact on veterans and their families. These invisible wounds are not counted in the casualty numbers, but we will be struggling with them for generations.

I haven't even touched on the massive debt we are running up to pay for this war. We are spending approximately $10 billion a month in Iraq. Congress has appropriated over $525 billion for this war, and the debt keeps mounting.

We heard eloquent floor statements yesterday on this side about how these costs are affecting our ability to address other priorities. I will not repeat all of what was said, but I do want to note that the war in Iraq keeps us from adequately addressing critical gaps in our homeland security and law enforcement. While we had 92,000 more troops to the Army and Marine Corps, the city of New York has 5,000 fewer police officers on the beat than it did on September 11, 2001.

This year, we will spend a fifth of our $740 billion ``national security budget'' on Iraq, twice what the Federal Government spends defending our Nation.

Meanwhile, the administration wants to cut grants for first responders, and the Coast Guard is struggling with an inadequate force size.

It doesn't make sense. It simply doesn't make sense. The American people know that, which is why they voted the way they did last November. More than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of a phased withdrawal. They don't want to pass this problem off to the next President and another Congress, and they sure don't want another American servicemember to die or lose a limb while elected representatives put their own political comfort over the wishes of their constituents.

Polls continue to show voters strongly oppose the war in Iraq, and that is one of the top issues on which they will be voting. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll found that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of the situation in Iraq and 56 percent disapprove strongly. The same poll also found this is the second most important issue to voters in November, behind the economy and jobs. And a recent Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans, 56 percent, do not believe the surge is working and want a timetable to get out of Iraq. Those Americans need to be heard, and that is what we are trying to do with this important debate.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased we have had a chance to debate S. 2633, the Feingold-Reid bill requiring the safe redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I am very grateful to the majority leader for allowing this debate and for cosponsoring this legislation. He is a strong opponent of the war, and he understands how it is distracting us from our top national security priority: defeating the global threat presented by al-Qaida and its affiliates.

While the debate on Iraq is refreshing, the Republicans still will not allow us to actually vote on the bill. In fact, if you listened to the other side during this debate, it was apparent they believe leaving large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely for an open-ended military mission is somehow in our country's interest.

The American people must be scratching their heads and thinking: What is it going to take to get those folks in Washington to listen to us? I can assure them--and I can assure my colleagues--we will have more debate and votes on Iraq. Members will have still more opportunities to listen to their constituents, and to listen to the warnings about the global threat from al-Qaida and the intolerable strain on our military. And they will again have to decide whether to keep ignoring those warnings and give the President the green light to continue a war without end in Iraq.

In a few minutes, the Senate will vote in relation to another Feingold-Reid bill, S. 2634, addressing al-Qaida. Before I discuss that bill, I wish to respond to some of the criticisms that have been leveled against the Feingold-Reid Iraq redeployment bill.

I am glad some of my colleagues have apparently taken the time to read the Iraq bill, but I wish some of them had read it a little more carefully, or thought a little harder, before voicing some of their concerns.

Of course, some of the criticisms come from Members who have no interest in stopping or slowing down the war. But I have even heard a few complaints from Members on our side who oppose the war. In fact, some Democrats seem to be trying a lot harder to come up with arguments against this bill, and against Congress acting, than they are trying to end the war. One or two senior Democrats are actually lobbying hard behind the scenes against the Feingold-Reid bill. That is disappointing, to say the least, and it shows us all what we continue to be up against as we try to bring this war to a close.

Let me start by pointing out that the Feingold-Reid bill does not-- does not--restrict the Government's ability to go after al-Qaida and its affiliates around the globe. In fact, one of the main purposes of the bill is to ensure we have the full capability to do just that. When it comes to our troops in Iraq, however, we cannot allow this President to use the narrow exceptions in this bill to continue his misguided policies. The language in the bill has been crafted to try to ensure the administration does not--and cannot--continue to maintain a heavy military footprint in Iraq.

Specifically, the first exception in the Feingold-Reid bill allows funding to continue for ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of AQ and affiliated international terrorist organizations.''

This provision allows operations against AQ in Iraq because fighting al-Qaida is central to our national security. But it does not allow the President to continue the current opened-ended mission because it is not in our national security interest to leave our troops on the front lines in the middle of an Iraqi civil war.

The ``limited in duration and scope'' language prohibits operations without a clearly defined counterterrorism objective, such as the current open-ended

mission. And, of course, this provision, like the rest of the bill, only applies to Iraq. It does not affect any other U.S. operations around the world. But if my colleagues are particularly troubled by this ``duration and scope'' language, I am open to discussing with them any reasonable modifications that do not open new loopholes. And this is no reason to completely block the Senate from even considering the bill. My colleagues are free to try to amend it, if they will only let us take it up.

If my colleagues think we should have U.S. troops conducting operations in Iraq against other organizations that are not affiliated with AQ, then we do, in fact, have a difference of opinion. We need to be clear about our priorities. Our top national security priority is the threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates. Pitting our brave men and women in uniform against groups or entities in Iraq that do not pose a direct threat to the United States is a misuse of our resources, and it is exactly that mistake I am trying to fix with this legislation.

Obviously, at all times, U.S. troops in Iraq will be able to defend themselves against any perceived threat, regardless of who it comes from. But when we are talking about planning and conducting operations, those operations would need to be targeted against members of al-Qaida or affiliates. If we cannot figure out who we are launching operations against, and if we cannot figure out how to distinguish between al- Qaida in Iraq and the many other unsavory actors in Iraq who do not directly threaten our interests, then we have a serious intelligence problem which underscores the degree to which this war is distracting us from our top priority.

The Feingold-Reid bill also allows U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to provide ``security for personnel and infrastructure of the United States Government.'' A question has been raised about whether U.S. troops could also provide security for non-U.S. coalition forces under this provision. Of course, the vast majority of foreign troops in Iraq are U.S. troops. We are the ones holding the bag there, and that is a direct result of this administration's decision to rush to war without building a strong, sustainable coalition. So raising concerns about non-Iraqi coalition forces is largely a red herring. However, I respect the contributions of those coalition troops, and I would be open, again, to discussing ways in which we can ensure they are protected without opening up a big loophole to keep a lot more U.S. troops there. Again, technical concerns such as this are no reason to block us from even considering the bill. Frankly, it sounds like an excuse not to deal with the real issue, which is our need to get out of this situation.

The Feingold-Reid bill also permits U.S. troops to be stationed in Iraq to provide ``training to members of the Iraqi Security Forces who have not been involved in sectarian violence or in attacks upon the U.S. Armed Forces. . . .''

This does not require any kind of guarantee that ISF troops receiving training have not been involved in sectarian violence or attacks upon the U.S., as some have suggested. It just requires some good-faith effort to make sure we are not assisting some of the very people responsible for destabilizing Iraq and killing Americans. That seems pretty reasonable, doesn't it? Just kind of a good-faith effort to make sure we are not helping people who have already killed Americans. One would think that was reasonable.

This should not be controversial. We have a policy as a government of not supporting militaries around the world that commit undisciplined acts of violence, and this administration ostensibly vets foreign militaries thoroughly under what is known as the ``Leahy Law.'' I do not see why we should make an exception for Iraq, particularly when the GAO and General Jones have issued reports showing that the ISF is compromised by militias. If we continue to arm and train the ISF, we may simply be contributing to ongoing instability in Iraq. At a minimum, then, we need to be careful to ensure we are not giving some of the worst actors in Iraq the tools to perpetuate further violence and bloodshed.

Oh, and by the way, we have already trained over 439,000 ISF personnel. This certainly raises questions about how much more training they need. We need to make sure the President cannot keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq policing the civil war under the guise of ``training.''

Indeed, the ``training'' U.S. military personnel in Iraq are providing is not what is traditionally thought of as training, such as boot camp. Our training is all field training, and there is no bright line between training and joint operations.

Now, some folks here think that is fine. They want U.S. troops to continue being embedded with Iraqi troops, conducting joint operations. The Feingold-Reid bill would not foreclose all joint operations or the equipping of ISF. U.S. troops could continue to conduct joint counterterrorism operations with ISF so long as the operations target al-Qaida or affiliated international terrorist organizations. But U.S. troops could not be embedded with Iraqi Security Forces for ``training'' purposes. And the U.S. may continue to equip ISF but may not deploy U.S. troops to Iraq solely for this purpose.

Some on our side want U.S. troops to continue providing ``logistical support'' to Iraqi forces indefinitely. This, again, is a backdoor way to keep substantial numbers of U.S. troops on the front lines, performing basic combat support functions, such as providing air support. Even seemingly run-of-the-mill logistical operations can be extremely dangerous in the chaotic environment in Iraq. That is not in our national security interest, and it is not something we should permit. We need a full redeployment, not a halfhearted half measure.

I hope my colleagues will rethink their opposition to the Feingold- Reid bill. If they do have these kinds of concerns about it, particularly some of the more technical concerns I have addressed, well, let's actually allow the bill to come to the floor and let's have amendments and votes. That is our responsibility as legislators, and we owe it to our constituents and our men and women in uniform to have this debate in the open and on the record.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has voted overwhelmingly to allow some debate of the Feingold-Reid al-Qaida bill, but it is pretty clear to everyone that this body still doesn't fully understand and is not ready to address head on the threat posed by al- Qaida. As was made clear during debate on the Iraq redeployment legislation, too many Members confuse the war in Iraq with the fight against al-Qaida. That is true of the administration too. While it is focused on Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Don't take my word for it. Listen to our intelligence community.

Early this month, the Director of National Intelligence testified before Congress that the central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is al-Qaida's most dangerous component. A few months ago, the DNI again repeated the intelligence community's assessment that over the last few years ``Al Qaeda's central leadership has been able to regenerate the core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks in the Homeland''--our homeland, Mr. President, the United States of America.

The DNI also testified that al-Qaida ``is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.: the identification, training, and positioning of operatives for an attack in the Homeland.''

Meanwhile, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan is serving as a staging ground for al-Qaida in support of the Taliban and providing it with a base similar to the one it used to have across the border in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, testified

recently that ``the most likely near term attack on the United States will come from Al Qaeda via'' its safe havens in Pakistan--not in Iraq, in Pakistan. Over the past year, we have seen an unprecedented rise in suicide bombings in Pakistan. The Taliban is gaining ground in Afghanistan. While we may be sending an additional 3,200 marines to Afghanistan in the near future, we have been fighting for far too long there with too few soldiers and too few reconstruction funds.

With the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying in ``Iraq we do what we must and in Afghanistan we do what we can,'' it is no wonder that Afghanistan is teetering on the edge. Let me remind my colleagues that it was from Afghanistan--Afghanistan, not Iraq--that the 9/11 attacks were planned. And it was under the Taliban regime, which is once again gaining ground, that al-Qaida was able to flourish so freely.

Al-Qaida affiliates from Africa to Southeast Asia pose a significant terrorist threat. While we have been so myopically fixated on Iraq, the threat from an al-Qaida affiliate in north Africa has grown and now, according to the DNI's testimony, ``represents a significant threat to the United States and European interests in the region.'' Since its merger with al-Qaida in September 2006, it has expanded its targets to include the United States, the United Nations, and other interests. And it likely got a further boost when al-Qaida leadership announced last November that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group united with al-Qaida under AQIM's leadership. Its possible reach covers Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania, Libya, and other countries. Meanwhile, it is using deadly tactics that suggest it is acquiring knowledge from the war in Iraq. That is right. The war in Iraq may be being used as a training ground by forces that wish to do us harm. Another way of saying it is, our troops are being used as a way to train people to give them the skills to launch attacks in other places.

Al-Qaida has affiliates around the world--in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Lebanon, where al-Qaida poses a growing threat, the Horn of Africa, and Southeast Asia. We cannot ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al-Qaida is and will continue to be a global terrorist organization with dangerous affiliates around the world. We are watching al-Qaida strengthen and develop its affiliates around the world while we remain bogged down in Iraq.

We need a robust military presence and an effective reconstruction program in Afghanistan. We need to build strong partnerships where al- Qaida and its affiliates are operating--across north Africa, in Southeast Asia, and along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we need to address the root causes of the terrorist threat, not just rely on military power to get the job done.

We can start doing that by passing S. 2634. This bill requires the administration to provide Congress with a report outlining a comprehensive global strategy to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates. The strategy must ensure U.S. resources and assets are targeted appropriately to meet the regional and country-specific threats we face, and that troop deployments do not overstretch our military.

Who could oppose a commonsense bill such as this? Well, as I noted earlier, the administration actually issued a veto threat for this bill. That threat makes the baffling argument that preparing a report on the threat of al-Qaida may somehow ``inhibit the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.'' That is not all. The administration also argues that preparing a plan that prioritizes operations against al-Qaida would tie the hands of commanders.

This is just plain double-talk. We are trying to help our commanders and the rest of our Government to properly dedicate their resources to our most pressing national security concern. This bill does not tell our commanders how to carry out any operations; it merely requires a report. The Congress has a constitutional responsibility, in collaboration with the President, to determine what are our national security priorities. That is what we should be doing. That is what this bill would do. Unless the President has completely abandoned the idea of civilian control of the military, and of the shared responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches, then he should have no objection to my bill.

The administration does say that it ``supports the bill's goals and intent, with regard to updating and informing Congress and the American people on the strategy to combat terrorism.'' I guess that is good news. But then it cites two documents it has already prepared on this topic. One is the September 2006 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which sets broad goals but does not include the detail called for in our bill about how limited resources will be allocated to achieve this strategic vision. That 2006 document also does not prioritize the geographic--country and region-specific--threats we face from AQ and its affiliates, which is essential because how else--how else, Mr. President--will we know where to focus our resources?

The other document cited by the administration is the National Implementation Plan. I am a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees, and I am not even allowed to see that document. The administration will not even share it with the full Intelligence Committee. So the idea this document is an acceptable substitute for what is called for in the Feingold-Reid bill is absurd.

The administration suggests our bill limits the President's authority to withhold information. Now, I agree we need to protect classified information, and there is nothing in my bill--nothing--that would prevent the addition of a classified annex. Much of our strategic planning, however, is not classified, consistent with our country's belief in open government and accountability.

The American people deserve to be told, to the extent possible without divulging classified information, what their government is doing to protect them. The President's veto threat is further evidence of his unwillingness to be straight with the American people about the fact that the war in Iraq is actually undermining our national security. The President's current strategy is to prioritize operations in Iraq, even to the detriment of operations in Afghanistan against those who attacked us on 9/11.

Now, that does not make sense. It has to change, and we have to change it today by passing this Feingold-Reid bill, refocusing our attention and resources on al-Qaida.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support final passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007. This bill is long overdue, and I hope that House works expediently to move this bill forward so that we can get this bill to the President and signed into law.

Throughout the Senate's work on this bill, I have been impressed with the bipartisan work that Senator Dorgan and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee have put into moving this bill forward. It was not any easy process, but I commend the committee for its ongoing dedication to significant consultation with Indian Country in drafting this bill and seeing it through to completion.

There are significant unmet needs in Indian Country throughout this Nation, and addressing the unmet health care needs ranks as one of the most significant problems that we must address. The Federal Government has a longstanding and well-established trust responsibility with regard to American Indian affairs, and this trust responsibility extends to providing good health care to communities throughout Indian Country.

For too long, the Federal Government has not lived up to its Federal trust responsibility commitments, but I hope that passage of this legislation will set the Federal Government on a course toward better supporting the needs of our American Indian communities, whether they be health care, education, or housing needs. While this bill is a vital step in the right direction, we need to follow through with fiscally responsible increased funding for the important programs authorized in this legislation.

This bill has the support of tribal governments throughout the United States, including the 11 tribes in my State of Wisconsin. I have heard from a number of constituents in Wisconsin about the need to pass this bill this year. The improvements that the legislation will make to various Indian Health Service programs including clinical programs on the various reservations throughout the State and urban Indian programs in Milwaukee and Green Bay are significant, and it is my hope that this bill will help improve the quality of health care provided to American Indians living throughout Wisconsin.

Health care is consistently the No. 1 issue that I hear about all over my home State of Wisconsin. When I hold my annual townhall meetings across the State, many people come to tell me about problems with our overall health care system, and data shows us that these problems are often most acutely felt in Indian Country. Lack of access to good health care is a problem that disproportionately affects American Indians throughout the United States. According to recent studies, American Indians and Alaska Natives are 200 percent more likely to die from diabetes, more than 500 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, and approximately 500 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis.

Some may doubt whether this legislation is needed or whether it will really help improve the lives of Americans. The staggering statistics that highlight the health care disparities faced by American Indians show just how imperative it is that we pass this legislation, which is long overdue. These statistics also help illustrate the vast

amount of work that remains to be done to improve the quality of health care in American Indian communities beyond passage of this legislation. Nevertheless, this bill takes an important first step toward addressing these health care disparities through the many reforms it makes to Indian health care programs. For example, modernizing Indian Health Services programs through this legislation will help to address the diabetes and suicide crises that exist on reservations--just two examples of the many health care issues that impact the daily lives of American Indians across the country.

Reauthorization of this bill will help encourage health care providers to practice at facilities in Indian Country and encourage American Indians to enter the health care profession and serve their communities. Recruiting talented and dedicated professionals to serve in IHS facilities, whether urban or rural, is a key challenge facing many tribal communities in Wisconsin and around the country. I hope these provisions will help bring additional dedicated doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals to our tribal populations.

This bill also reauthorizes programs that assist urban Indian organizations with providing health care to American Indians living in urban centers around the country. The Urban Indian Health Program represents a tiny fraction of the Indian Health Services budget, but the small amount of resources given to the urban programs provides critical health services to those Indians living in urban areas. Contrary to what some people may think, the majority of American Indians now live in urban areas around the country, including two urban areas in my State--Milwaukee and Green Bay. Throughout our Nation's history, some American Indians came to urban centers voluntarily, but many were forcibly sent to urban areas as a result of wrongheaded Federal Indian policy in the 1950s and 1960s and have since stayed in urban areas and planted roots in these communities.

As a result of this movement to urban centers, Congress created the urban Indian program in the late 1970s to address the growing urban Indian population around the country. The Federal Government's responsibility to American Indians does not end simply because some American Indians left their ancestral lands and moved to urban locations--particularly when some of them had little choice in the matter.

While this legislation takes important steps toward improving urban Indian health care programs, we need to do much more to support these urban programs, including fighting for increased appropriations. I have been disappointed that the President has proposed zeroing out the urban Indian program in past budgets, and unfortunately, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2009 is no different. As in years past, I have joined with my colleagues to urge the Senate to restore funding for urban Indian programs to the Federal budget for fiscal year 2009, and I hope this year the Senate can also provide a much-needed boost in funding for the urban Indian programs.

I voted for an amendment offered by Senators Smith and Cantwell that would permit, but not require, the Secretary of HHS to create an area distribution fund to allocate funding resources for IHS facilities construction to all 12 of the IHS service areas. I have heard a lot of concern from tribes in my State of Wisconsin about the way that construction facility funds are allocated and the fact that certain IHS service areas, including the Bemidji region covering Wisconsin, do not fare well under the current system. I recognize that there needs to be an overall boost in the appropriations for IHS facilities construction to help tribes currently on the construction priority list as well as those tribes that cannot even get on the current list, and I look forward to supporting fiscally responsible efforts to boost funding for various IHS programs, including this one. But in the meantime, we should explore opportunities to address innovative solutions to this problem, and this amendment takes a reasonable approach to addressing this problem. Any efforts to create an area distribution fund should involve significant consultation with tribes throughout Indian Country, and I am pleased this amendment makes clear that such consultation would be required.

I also voted for amendment 4032, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, because it is critically important that sexual assault victims be able to find out whether they have been exposed to HIV. However, I am concerned about the way that the amendment was drafted. If there is a conference on this bill, I would urge conferees to consider making this provision consistent with the existing provision governing the testing of defendants in Federal cases, 42 U.S.C. section 14011, or at a minimum to clarify how it would relate to that law. I also would urge them to ensure that the new provision complies fully with the requirements of the fourth amendment.

Mr. President, Indian Country has made many compromises in order to move this bill forward, and passage of this bill is long overdue. The Senate's actions today mark an enormous victory for Indian Country, and I hope that the House will quickly take this bill up so that we can get this bill signed into law by the President this year.

This bill takes concrete and positive steps toward addressing some of the health care needs facing American Indian communities around the country, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to build on this legislation in the coming months and years. Challenges facing American Indians throughout the United States extend beyond health care issues into issues of improving economic development, educational opportunities, and affordable and safe housing opportunities, and I hope we can continue to work together in a bipartisan way to pass other important measures this year. Together, tribal nations throughout all our States can work closely with the Federal Government to address the vast array of these unmet needs. Passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 today provides an important foundation going forward, and it is up to all of us to see that this foundation is strengthened in the coming months and years.

Mr. President, the Senate will vote later today in relation to two bills I recently introduced with Majority Leader Reid addressing the war in Iraq and the disastrous toll it continues to take on our top national security priority, the global fight against al- Qaida.

Many of my colleagues have expressed concern that the exhausting rate of deployments in Iraq and the resources we are committing to that country are undermining our ability to protect ourselves at home and respond to dangers abroad, including the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and the global threat posed by al-Qaida. While we all hope that the recent decline in violence in Iraq will hold, lasting stability remains elusive and there is a serious danger that our troops will remain mired in Iraq while our ability to combat al-Qaida elsewhere and protect ourselves at home continues to deteriorate.

Senator Reid and I have introduced two bills to address these problems head-on. One of these bills, S. 2633, is similar to legislation we have offered before. I am pleased that this bill is also cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cardin, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Harkin, Leahy, Menendez, Obama, Sanders, Schumer, Whitehouse, and Wyden. It requires the President to safely redeploy U.S. combat troops from Iraq with very narrow exceptions. Effective 120 days from enactment of this bill, U.S. troops could only remain in Iraq for the following purposes: conducting targeted military operations against al- Qaida and its affiliates, providing security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure, providing limited training of Iraqi Security Forces, providing equipment and training to our own troops, and continuing to redeploy from Iraq.

Unlike previous legislation I have offered, this bill does not have an end date for redeployment. Some of my colleagues who oppose the war have expressed concern about Congress setting such a date, and in drafting this legislation we have tried to address their concerns. By not including an end date, we are trying to provide additional flexibility in how the troops are redeployed. And we are also making doubly clear that at no point will funding be denied to the troops-- they will continue to be fully funded throughout their redeployment.

If there is no end date for redeployment, then (what is to stop the administration keeping troops there indefinitely? The answer is that, after 120 days, troops can only remain in Iraq for the narrowly defined purposes in the bill. Because these exceptions are so narrow, the bill removes any incentive for the President to delay or ``slow walk'' redeployment.

Now, some on the other side are arguing that this new bill is tougher than previous versions, because the funding restriction kicks in sooner, in 120 days. Of course, these are the same people who oppose any limitations on the war, so I don't take their arguments too seriously. I suspect they haven't actually read the new bill, or they would realize that the bill is quite a bit more flexible, for the reasons I just mentioned.

Right now, the administration is considering various ``drawdown'' plans, all of which would leave well over 100,000 troops in Iraq through the end of the year. That would continue to require an exhausting rate of deployments that we simply cannot afford--for our military readiness, our fiscal bottom line, and our national security.

This administration has put Iraq first for too long. In an effort to refocus our national priorities, the second bill Senator Reid and I have introduced with Senators Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cardin, Casey, Clinton, Dodd, Harkin, Lautenberg, Leahy, Menendez, Obama, Schumer, and White-house, would require the administration to come up with a strategy to wage a comprehensive, global campaign against al-Qaida, without undermining our military readiness. The legislation, S. 2634, does this by requiring a comprehensive report from the Secretaries of Defense, State and Homeland Security, working in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. The report will examine the threat posed by al-Qaida and affiliates around the world and recommend ways to ensure that our national security assets are properly deployed to address this threat. To be clear, I am not just talking about military assets, we also have intelligence, diplomatic and other assets that we need to use to defeat al-Qaida. We can't just rely on boots on the ground--we need to use all of the other facets of U.S. power, including aggressive public and private diplomacy, to counter al-Qaida.

Some of the information called for in this bill will probably need to be contained in a classified annex. But there is no reason the administration cannot also provide a public report identifying in broad terms the threat we face and how to respond to it. The American public should be kept as informed as

possible about how we are protecting them from the number one threat we face.

I know some of my colleagues do not want to be talking about Iraq again. I know some of them complain that we spent too much time debating Iraq last year and I know some of them have concerns about whether now is the right time to bring these bills up for a vote. But we cannot allow the focus on Iraq to fade because violence has declined in parts of Iraq. It is true violence levels are down to where they were in 2005, but Iraq is still extremely and unacceptably violent, as it was in 2005. Violence has risen in Mosul and in the south, and U.S. casualty rates in January were higher than in December. All is not calm in Iraq, as the administration would have you believe.

Moreover, the surge has not brought Iraq any closer to legitimate political reconciliation at the national level--and it may, in fact, have undermined the prospects for such reconciliation in the long term. The President's policies have empowered former insurgents and militia- infiltrated security forces with questionable loyalties. By supporting sheiks in al Anbar--and elsewhere--we may have reduced violence in the near term, but only by making it more difficult to achieve national reconciliation in the long run. The Director of National Intelligence, or DNI, testified this month that many Sunnis who participate in local security initiatives remain hostile to the Shi'ite leaders in Baghdad, and that some of those leaders see the Sunnis we are supporting as ``thinly disguised insurgents'' who are plotting against them. Mr. President, we cannot, and should not, ask our brave men and women in uniform to resolve these sectarian disputes. Military operations are not a substitute for a viable political settlement, and the American people are simply not willing to leave our troops on the front lines indefinitely in hopes that some day such a settlement will arrive.

Recent gains in Iraq are tactical successes at best, devoid of an overarching strategy to integrate local powerbrokers into a broader national framework. Our presence has only added to the complexities in Iraq as we meddle in local dynamics and contribute to internal divisions and sectarian tensions. Keeping a significant military presence in Iraq will not bring lasting stability to that country. Indeed, the Iraqi people and the Iraqi parliament continue to oppose an open-ended U.S. military presence in their country, which is something they have in common with the American people.

Keeping our troops in Iraq will not solve Iraq's problems, and it won't help us address the growing threat posed by al-Qaida around the world. It makes no sense to devote so many of our critical resources and so much of our attention to one country, rather than to the global fight against al-Qaida.

Every year, I hold town hall meetings in each of the 72 counties of Wisconsin, and over the January and February recess I held some 30 meetings in some of the most conservative parts of the state. I didn't bring up Iraq at those January meetings because I wanted to see whether it was still a major concern, particularly with these audiences. And guess what, in every single meeting, they brought it up with me. And they didn't just bring it up, they asked what we are doing to bring home the troops. But I had to tell them that, instead of getting out of Iraq, we will likely be sending one-third of the members of the Wisconsin National Guard back to Iraq next year, many of whom have served within the last 2 or 3 years.

They will be torn from their family, their jobs, their communities, to be put in harm's way, all in order to create space for a political reconciliation in Iraq that is always just over the horizon. They will not be there to protect the people of Wisconsin in the event of an emergency, nor will they be reinforcing our troops in Afghanistan, who face what one recent report described as a ``stalemate'' in fighting al-Qaida's ally, the Taliban. Like Americans all across the country, the people of Wisconsin don't think this makes sense. They want an end to our involvement in this war in Iraq, and they want to know what's stopping us from making it happen.

This administration has been so distracted by Iraq that it has neglected to address the top threats to our national security. It has allowed security conditions in Afghanistan to deteriorate tremendously, to the point where former NATO Commander General Jones recently concluded that we are in a ``strategic stalemate.'' I need hardly remind my colleagues that this is the country from which al-Qaida launched the 9/11 attacks, and where it continues to operate.

While agreeing to provide 3,200 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, Secretary Gates has also requested additional ground troops from our allies. If our allies are unwilling to provide those troops or worsening conditions require additional troops, it is far from clear that we will have the forces we need in Afghanistan without further undermining military readiness and homeland security.

Across the Afghan border, in Pakistan, things are also looking bad. The Director of National Intelligence testified recently that ``al- Qaida's central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is al- Qaida's most dangerous component.'' The DNI also said that since the middle of 2006, there has been an influx of ``new Western recruits'' into this part of the world, an indication that al-Qaida is ``improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the United States: the identification, training, and positioning of operatives for an attack in the homeland.'' His testimony closely echoed his warnings from almost a year ago when he noted that future attacks against our nation were likely to come from that part of the world. It is worth mentioning that this is the same exact warning we received from the July 2007 NIE, which assessed that al-Qaida has regenerated and reconstituted itself in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.

The administration has made matters worse by associating itself with an undemocratic, authoritarian regime in Pakistan, one that the Pakistani people, finally given the chance to make their voices heard, roundly rejected. In return for questionable anti-terrorism assistance, we have given the Musharraf regime billions of dollars, not to mention the cost to our credibility, and to our ability to build strong, sustainable partnerships in Pakistan.

Our endless presence in Iraq is distracting us from these core threats to our national security. Instead of dancing around these vital concerns, we need to address them head on and that is why we need a strategy for defeating al-Qaida and its affiliates around the globe. We need a strategy which identifies the gravest threats to our national security and makes recommendations for addressing them with both military and nonmilitary initiatives.

I know there is no silver bullet to defeat al-Qaida. But it has been made very clear to Congress, and to the American public that if we are to protect ourselves at home, there must be a dramatic shift in how we order our national priorities. We cannot continue with the current agenda. We must refocus not just so we have the capacity to respond to other contingencies abroad but also because our heavy footprint in Iraq makes us more vulnerable at home.

We need to rebuild our domestic response capability, which has been severely compromised by repeated deployments of our National Guard. As long as we keep over 100,000 troops in Iraq we will have to continue to deploy Guard units in a manner that compromises their ability to prepare for domestic incidents. Deployments to Iraq have left those responsible for protecting us at home with, on average, only 56 percent of the essential ``dual-use'' equipment needed to respond to a domestic incident.

Indeed, the National Guard Bureau estimates that it is facing a $47 billion equipment shortfall, including a $20 million shortfall in equipment needed to respond to a chemical, biological, or radiological incident at home, notwithstanding the fact that it is the stated intention of al-Qaida to pursue such weapons. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves concluded that ``[b]ecause our nation has not adequately resourced its forces designated for response to weapons of mass destruction, it does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available.''

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries).

Madam President, will the Senator from Georgia yield for a question?

I wish to ask the Senator through the Chair--he indicated that our strategy vis-a-vis al-Qaida after 9/11 has to do with the doctrine of preemption. I am intrigued by that. I know that was a justification for going into Iraq, but I wonder if the Senator could explain how the doctrine of preemption is going to help us against an organization that is existing in some 80 countries in the world. Are we going to invade and preempt 80 different nations?

So you are not referring here to the doctrine of preemption to use as a justification for invading Iraq; you are talking about the need for intelligence, is that correct?

Madam President, if the Senator will further yield for a question, I understand what he is saying in terms of the need for intelligence, but the doctrine of preemption that was announced by the President 9 days after 9/11 and through that period was not about intelligence. It had to do with the notion of where we could intervene in various nations. So I am just a little bit confused about that and trying to understand the connection.

Madam President, I appreciate the Senator responding to me. I will simply say that I virtually agree with that general proposition that we need to be able to have the information and we need to stop terrorist attacks, and I am glad we were able to do it in Georgia.

But the fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 80 countries around the world, and because of putting so much focus on Iraq, including so much focus of our intelligence system in Iraq, we don't have the adequate resources to preempt terrorist attacks throughout the world. That is the very problem. There are terrorist attacks going on in places such as Algeria and Morocco and Afghanistan and Southeast Asia, and because we are so consumed with Iraq, we can't pursue the very notion of preempting the terrorist attacks to which the Senator from Georgia properly refers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session in order to receive testimony on the Department of the Army in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2009 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding U.S. oil inventory policies, including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve policies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to hear testimony on ``Economic and Fiscal Conditions of the States.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I support the intelligence authorization conference report, which is so important to Congress's efforts to conduct oversight of the intelligence community. The administration's illegal actions and its relentless efforts to obtain vast new eavesdropping authorities make oversight more important than ever. I particularly support the provision limiting interrogation techniques to those authorized by the Army Field Manual. I was a cosponsor of this amendment when it was offered in conference, and I am pleased that it has the support of bipartisan majorities of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. It represents, at long last, an important step toward bringing this administration into conformity with the law and with our national principles. It also represents a clear decision by the very Members of Congress who have been briefed on the CIA's interrogation program that the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques is not in our country's best interests.

When the intelligence authorization bill was marked up by the committee in May, I made my position clear. I could not support the CIA's program on moral, legal, or national security grounds. When I was finally fully briefed on the program, it was clear that what was going on was profoundly wrong. It did not represent what we, as a nation, stand for, or what we are fighting for in this global struggle against al-Qaida. And it was not making our country any safer. I also concluded that if the American people knew what we in the Intelligence Committee knew, they would agree.

The program also cannot stand up to any serious legal scrutiny. To take just one interrogation technique that the administration has acknowledged using in the past, waterboarding is torture, pure and simple. Everyone knows this. The rest of the world knows this. And, in every other context, our own government knows this. What Orwellian

world do we inhabit in which the administration attempts to argue otherwise? And in what world does waterboarding not ``shock the conscience,'' the test required by the Detainee Treatment Act? I suspect that the administration knows full well that its legal justifications for the program are empty, and that is why the Attorney General has refused to tell Congress why he believes the program is legal and has instead referenced Justice Department analyses that have also been withheld from Congress.

The CIA's interrogation policy is undermining our ability to fight al-Qaida. It has diminished our standing in the world, precisely when we should be providing global leadership against this growing threat. And it has denied us the moral high ground that is so critical if we are to reach out to parts of the world in which al-Qaida seeks to operate and recruit. By passing this conference report, we can begin to reverse this damage. We can also, finally, reassure our troops that torture is torture and that if you are captured by the enemy, the American government will not equivocate about the Geneva Conventions protections to which you are entitled.

The administration has repeatedly attempted to sell this program by arguing that Members of Congress have been briefed, as if the mere fact of telling members of Congress means that the program must be legal. The President made this argument last fall. And the Director of the CIA did so again last week. But, what the administration always fails to mention is that as members of the Intelligence Committees have learned about the program, opposition has steadily increased. I have sent a classified letter detailing my serious concerns and so, too, have others. And now, we have bipartisan majorities of both intelligence committees saying ``enough is enough.''

It has long been my position that interrogation techniques should be limited to those authorized by the Army Field Manual. This approach brings the CIA into conformity with the rules by which our men and women in uniform defend our nation and themselves. We fought Nazi Germany and the battles of the Cold War without resorting to government-sanctioned torture. We can surely defend America and defend our principles now. It is time to bring an end to this stain on our Nation, and to make the American people proud again.

Madam President, I would like to take a moment to note the violent attacks which took place earlier this week on the President and Prime Minster of East Timor, or Timor-Leste as it is also called. The people of East Timor have experienced far too much violence for such a small nation and it is time, once again, for the world to renounce violence as a means to achieving any political agenda. I condemn such acts and urge all parties to seek legitimate peaceful--and political--means to ensure their voices are heard.

Earlier this week, President Jose Ramos Horta was shot by rebel soldiers. This band of rebels, led by the infamous Alfredo Reinado, attacked President Ramos-Horta outside his house. As a longstanding advocate of East Timor's self-determination, I have met President Ramos-Horta and am very troubled by this attempt to take his life and to undermine East Timorese stability and independence. President Ramos Horta is a Nobel Peace Prize winner and is known for his leadership of a nonviolent struggle against the Indonesian occupation. It is precisely because of these honorable principles that he has espoused, in the face of repeated violence, that I am doubly concerned by this recent attack. I am also worried that this violent act could affect the stability and progress of this young country and am pleased that Australia has agreed to send additional soldiers and police officers to address any unrest that might occur in the aftermath of this heinous attack.

I have followed East Timor's ongoing transformation very closely since the disastrous crisis in the late 1990s and have been so pleased to see its successful transition from Indonesian occupation to a U.N. administration to an independent nation over the years. Certainly East Timor's path forward has not been free from challenges but it has moved consistently in the right direction. I have long supported a robust U.N. peacekeeping mission there, I pressed the administration to take a hard line with the Indonesia military as a result, in part, of its actions in East Timor, and I spoke out against the renewed unrest in 2006 which led to a collapse of many key institutions and once again required the international community to step in and play a key role in security reform.

We cannot overlook the significance of these attacks in East Timor as the country stands to chart a course for emerging democracies around the world. A stable East Timor sends a signal that the international community can work collaboratively and consistently for the betterment of a nation--and a people. East Timor has received significant multilateral support over the years and if it fails to develop into a fully functioning and stable democracy, we will need to reexamine what kinds of commitment our nation truly makes to young democracies striving to succeed. For these reasons, I hope this incident is little more than a blip on the radar for Ramos-Horta and that his recovery is a speedy one so he can return to the helm of leadership and finish his term as President.

Mr. President, the Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment lets the Government get the information it needs about terrorists and about purely foreign communications, while providing additional checks and balances for communications between people in the United States and their overseas family members, friends, and business colleagues.

It has the support of nine cosponsors. All this amendment does is require the Government to take extra steps to protect the privacy of Americans on U.S. soil when it knows it has collected their communications.

This amendment in no way hampers our fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. This is not about whether we will be effective in combatting terrorism. This is about whether Americans at home deserve more privacy protections than foreigners overseas.

This is about separation of power, whether anyone outside the executive branch will oversee what the Government is doing with all the communications of Americans it collects inside the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this amendment was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It ensures that in implementing the new authorities provided in the bill, the Government is acquiring the communications of targets from whom it seeks to obtain foreign intelligence information and that it is not indiscriminately collecting all communications between the United States and overseas.

This amendment is necessary because of the vast and overbroad authorities provided by the PAA in this bill. In public testimony, the DNI stated that the PAA could authorize this type of bulk collection and could cover every communication between Americans inside the United States, in Europe, in South America, or the entire world. He also said that the Government is not actually engaging in this type of broad bulk collection but that it would be ``desirable.''

This amendment would not impede in any way collection in support of military operations, as the opponents continue to falsely assert. This extremely modest amendment would, however, oppose a massive bulk collection dragnet, which Chairman Rockefeller has even acknowledged would violate the Constitution.

I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I must oppose Bond amendment No. 3938. I do not object to expanding FISA to cover dangerous individuals involved in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which is the primary goal of this amendment.

But this amendment is drafted in such a way that its effect would be

much broader and could result in wiretaps issued by the secret FISA Court being directed at U.S. companies and U.S. universities that are engaged in perfectly legal research efforts or that are legally and legitimately working with materials that have multiple purposes and that aren't intended to be used for weaponry at all.

In fact, the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries have expressed serious concern about this amendment. Here is what they said: ``While we can appreciate the concerns for those wanting FISA to address the issues of international proliferation of WMDs, the language appears to also expose to secret wiretaps those U.S. academic researchers, universities and companies doing legal research into conventional and chemical/biological weapons.'' Mr. President, that is simply not acceptable.

Let me be clear: This amendment expands the core provisions of FISA that authorize wiretaps and secret searches of the homes and offices of people inside the United States. This is not about extending the new authorities provided in the Protect America Act and reauthorized by the Intelligence Committee bill.

It is one thing to permit secret court-ordered foreign intelligence wiretaps of people in this country who are intentionally engaged in the international proliferation of WMD. But because of the way this amendment is drafted, it would go far beyond just authorizing wiretaps for these types of dangerous criminals.

The biggest problem with the amendment is that it does not require that the people being wiretapped be involved in any criminal activity. This means that companies and individuals engaged in perfectly legal and legitimate biological, chemical, nuclear or other research could be wiretapped under this provision.

I don't understand this. Under FISA today, while foreign government officials can be surveilled to gain foreign intelligence even if they are not breaking the law, foreign terrorist suspects not associated with a government who are in the United States can only be wiretapped if they are involved in criminal activities. That requirement helps ensure that innocent people engaged in, say, legal protest activities aren't subject to FISA. And I know of no complaints about that requirement.

This amendment, on the other hand, doesn't require any suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. It does not even require that the target know that they might be contributing to proliferation. Worse yet, it does not even define international proliferation. So how can we know what activity might trigger the use of this most intrusive of investigation techniques against an individual in the United States? What does international proliferation mean for purposes of this authority?

I certainly don't know the answer to that, and there is nothing in this amendment to answer it. And without a requirement that the proliferation must be illegal under U.S. law, I am seriously concerned that this could cover entities doing perfectly legal, academic, chemical, biological or nuclear research, or even research on conventional weapons like grenades and bombs. It could also cover legitimate companies manufacturing dual-purpose goods, component parts or precursors that could be used for weapons if they fell into the wrong hands.

We can easily fix this problem with the amendment. It would be quite simple to add language virtually identical to that already included in FISA with respect to international terrorism, simply stating that international proliferation of WMD only covers activities that violate U.S. criminal laws or would be criminal if committed within U.S. jurisdiction. I even proposed language to this effect to the Senator from Missouri, hoping that we could work out our differences on this amendment and not require the full Senate to vote on it. But my modest proposal was rejected, for reasons I fail to understand. What I do understand is that if the proponents of this amendment refuse to include language limiting it to people committing crimes, that makes me even more concerned about what is intended and how this is going to be used. There are other changes, as well, that could bring the scope of the amendment into line with the justification for it, but none of my suggestions were accepted.

Some may argue that we should not worry about this expansion of FISA because it only applies to foreigners visiting the United States, sometimes referred to as ``non-U.S. persons.'' But on the face of the amendment, that is not at all clear. This is because the amendment expands the definition of ``foreign power'' under FISA to cover any entity involved in international proliferation of WMD, regardless of whether it is incorporated in the United States or how many Americans work there. And any foreign power can be wiretapped or searched under the plain provisions of FISA, regardless of whether it is breaking the law.

Even if the amendment were limited to non-U.S. persons, U.S. companies, and universities hire any number of people who are here on work or study visas and who are not considered ``U.S. persons.'' When those people are here in the United States, they are fully protected by the fourth amendment. So why should those individuals be subject to secret court-ordered wiretaps and searches of their offices when they have done nothing illegal? And won't this affect the ability of U.S. companies and universities to recruit the best foreign talent to come and work for them?

I realize this all may seem very technical, but let me repeat the upshot: What all of this means is that, under this amendment, U.S. companies and U.S. universities conducting perfectly legal and legitimate activities--meaning they are doing nothing wrong--could be considered ``foreign powers'' under FISA and subject to court-ordered secret wiretaps in this country without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This has left organizations like the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries with very serious concerns about the amendment.

Mr. President, I would have been willing to adopt this amendment if it could have been modified to address some of these concerns. But it would be my preference not to address this complex issue in this legislation. The responsible thing to do would be to engage in further study so we know we have the right solution to this problem. But if we are going to take on this issue here, today, let's at least do it in a responsible, targeted way.

We have heard a lot about unintended consequences throughout the debate on this bill. I believe this amendment will have serious unintended consequences, and I think it would benefit all of us to study the issue further. But if that is not possible, we should at a minimum try to limit the effect of the amendment to the dangerous criminals who are the reason for this expansion of FISA. The Bond amendment does not do that.

Mr. President, as I have said repeatedly on the Senate floor, I strongly oppose granting unjustified retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly participated in the President's illegal wiretapping program, which went on for more than 5 years. It is unnecessary because under current law, companies already have immunity from civil liability if they comply with a court order or with a certification from the Attorney General that a court order is not required and all statutory requirements have been met. Congress should leave it to the courts to evaluate whether the companies alleged to have cooperated with the program would deserve immunity under this existing law rather than changing the rules of the game after the fact. That is why I have been a staunch supporter of the Dodd amendment to strike the immunity provision from this bill entirely.

Given my strong opposition to any retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, I want to explain why I voted in favor of two amendments that proposed alternatives to but did not entirely eliminate retroactive immunity. Amendment No. 3927, offered by Senators Specter and Whitehouse, would have substituted the Government for the companies in the pending litigation, and amendment No. 3919, proposed by Senator Feinstein, would have directed the FISA Court to evaluate whether companies complied with the existing immunity provision or otherwise acted in good faith.

I do not believe that either of these proposals is necessary. In fact, when Senator Specter offered his substitution proposal as a stand-alone bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I opposed it. I firmly believe that Congress should allow the courts to evaluate whether the companies deserve immunity under the law that applied to them at the time, and we should not be

meddling in this area at all. However, unlike the Specter bill, these two amendments were offered to replace the broad grant of retroactive immunity in the FISA bill, and they were offered after the Senate had voted not to adopt the Dodd-Feingold amendment. Each of them was an improvement, however slight, to the underlying immunity provision, in that they would have left open the possibility that the lawsuits could continue, thus permitting the courts to rule on the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program. Therefore, I voted in favor of both of these amendments, even though I would have much preferred to see retroactive immunity stricken entirely.