Floor Statements

Madam President, as I said late last week, it has been 52 months since military operations began in Iraq. Approximately 3,613 Americans have died and 25,000 have been wounded. More than 4 million Iraqis have fled their homes, and tens of thousands, at a minimum, have been killed. We have now been engaged in the war in Iraq longer than we were in World War II.

With the surge well underway, violence in Iraq has reached unprecedented levels and American troop fatalities are up 70 percent. From all angles, the situation in Iraq is an absolute disaster, and the administration's inability or unwillingness to recognize this reality is diminishing our international credibility, straining our relations with many foreign governments, and causing us to neglect weak and unstable regions that could pose threats to our national security.

The administration's single-minded focus on Iraq is preventing us from adequately confronting threats of extremism and terrorism around the globe. The declassified NIE released just yesterday confirms that al-Qaida remains the most serious threat to the United States and that key elements of that threat have been regenerated or even enhanced. The administration's policies in Iraq have also resulted in the emergence of an al-Qaida affiliate that did not exist before the war--al-Qaida in Iraq, or AQI. According to the NIE, al-Qaida's association with this group helps it raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for attacks against the United States.

Yet, while this report is further proof that the war in Iraq is a distraction from our core goal of fighting those who attacked us on 9/ 11, this administration and its supporters are still calling Iraq the ``central front in the war on terror,'' even though al-Qaida is a global threat and AQI is one of a number of actors responsible for violence in Iraq's self-sustaining sectarian conflict.

While our attention has been diverted and our resources squandered in Iraq, al-Quaida has protected its safe haven in Pakistan and has increased cooperation with regional terrorist groups. The sooner we redeploy from Iraq, the sooner we can refocus our efforts and develop a wide-ranging, inclusive strategy that would deny al-Qaida these advantages.

I remind my colleagues that last November, our constituents spoke out against this war in every way they possibly could. And as the situation continues to deteriorate, they have repeated their call--they were outside this building last night holding a candlelight vigil, and in States around the Nation, to show their support for ending this war and to tell President Bush and Senate Republicans to ``stop obstructing an end to the war.'' I know my colleagues heard their voices last November, and I am hopeful they heard them last night. It almost goes without saying that they hear them every time they return home as well.

But, just like last week and the week before that, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, these pervasive calls are ignored as the President continues to make it clear that nothing not the voices of his citizens, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of members from his own party--will discourage him from pursuing an indefinite and misguided war.

We can't put all the blame on the White House, however. An overwhelming majority of Congress authorized this misguided war, and now a far smaller but still determined minority

is allowing this war to continue, despite the wishes of the American people, despite the fact that our military is overstretched, and despite the fact that our presence in Iraq has been, according to our own State Department, ``used as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity in neighboring countries . . .''

It is up to Congress to act because the President will not. It us up to us to listen to the American people, to save American lives, and to ensure our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq. We have that power and responsibility and we must act now.

That is why I support the amendment offered by Senators Levin and Jack Reed--an amendment with binding deadlines for both beginning and ending redeployment and the only amendment we are likely to consider that would take a strong step toward bringing our involvement in this war to a close.

The Levin-Jack Reed amendment is not as strong as I would have liked, but it does require the President to bring home our troops, starting in 120 days. I am encouraged that this amendment is bipartisan, and while I wish it had the support of the entire Senate, the support of Senators Smith, Hagel, and Snow is nonetheless an important development.

I call on other Republicans to follow their lead; there is no time to waste. It is not enough to pass something that sounds good but doesn't move us toward ending the war. Weak, feel-good amendments may give people up here political comfort but that comfort won't last long we can fool ourselves, but we can't fool the American people.

It is a tragic truth that the war in Iraq has become the defining aspect of our engagement in this part of the world. Coupled with this administration's inconsistent efforts to promote democracy and the rule of law overseas, the war has alienated and angered those whose support and cooperation we need if we are to prevail against al-Qaida and its allies.

As long as the President's policies continue, Iraq will continue to be what the 2006 declassified National Intelligence Estimate called a ``cause celebre'' for a new generation of terrorists. Meanwhile, al- Qaida has expanded its relations with dangerous regional terrorist groups.

The newest National Intelligence Estimate indicates that we may now be facing the worst-case scenario in that our indefinite military presence in Iraq has both allowed al-Qaida to reconstitute itself while it has also served as a recruitment tool for a growing and scattered global network of al-Qaida affiliates. It is becoming increasing difficult for this administration to argue, as it continues to do, that our presence in Iraq is doing anything but profoundly undermining our national security.

Instead, we should be directing our attention and resources to combating the global threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates. The fight against terrorism is not conventional and requires better intelligence, better cooperation with friends and allies, stronger regional institutions, and more comprehensive policies designed to reverse the conditions that might lead to the creation of safe havens. We must prevent these safe havens from being established, including by working to settle regional conflicts and ensuring adequate provision of economic and development assistance so local populations can reject terrorist organizations. We need regional strategies that address the capabilities and policies of all affected countries, both bilateral and multilateral. We must expand our assistance while ensuring that corruption and threats to human rights and political liberties do not undermine these efforts.

By redeploying our troops from Iraq, we can refocus on developing these vital strategies. And by freeing up strategic and technical capacity, we can better address other priorities that have not received adequate attention, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Somalia. We can provide real international leadership to combat other pressing enemies such as endemic poverty, HIV/AIDS, and corruption--all of which can contribute to the kinds of instability where extremists thrive. These global battles can't be won if the war in Iraq continues to dominate our foreign policy and indefinitely drain vital security resources.

As I have said before and as I will undoubtedly say again, the administration's policies in Iraq are an unmitigated disaster. But we can mitigate this disaster, lessen the massive burden imposed on our troops, regain our credibility with the international community, and make our Nation more secure. We can and must do that by redeploying our troops from Iraq. Repairing the damage that has been done to our national security will be difficult and time-consuming, and we can start today by passing the Levin-Jack Reed amendment.

There is no reason to wait any longer. Members of this body have claimed that in September we will have a clearer sense of whether the ``surge'' has succeeded and whether our policy needs to change. But we already know what that report will tell us. We have heard it from foreign policy and military experts and could even read it with our own eyes in the Pentagon's first quarterly surge report or the White House's Benchmark Assessment Report, which was released last week. The surge was intended to create a ``window'' for political progress, but significant political progress is still nowhere to be seen. We already know there is no military solution to Iraq's problems, so now the question is how long are we prepared to wait? How long are we prepared to have our young men and women police a civil war where the struggle over national identity and the distribution of power has long since moved out of the Parliament building and onto the streets? How many more brave young Americans will lose a limb or be killed while we tell ourselves that another couple months will turn around 4 years of failed policies? When are my colleagues on the other side willing to say that enough is enough?

It has been a long night, and we have had some heated exchanges. It appears that a minority of the Senate is prepared to prevent a majority of the Senate--and the country--from doing what is long overdue: putting an end to a war without end. This is not the first time that a minority has prevented a majority from acting in this body. Indeed, I have been on the other side of a few of those fights. But this is not a question of senatorial prerogatives. I am not questioning the right of Senators to prevent a vote on the Levin-Jack Reed amendment. I am, however, questioning the wisdom of such a move, of allowing this terrible mistake to continue for days, weeks, months.

I will continue working to bring this war to a close. As long as so many of my colleagues refuse to listen to the American people, to acknowledge that this war is hurting our country and making our Nation more vulnerable, we will have more debates and more votes. Sooner or later, we will end this war. And the sooner we do so, the sooner we can start redeploying our servicemembers from Iraq's civil war and refocusing on a global campaign against a ruthless, determined enemy whose reach extends far beyond Iraq.

Mr. President, I voted against the Cornyn amendment because it significantly misrepresents the NIE because it makes assumptions about what may happen in Iraq that are speculative, and because it represents the same failed mindset that has resulted in the current disaster in Iraq. While the dangers of Iraq becoming a failed state are real, this amendment seeks to justify the current massive and indefinite U.S. military presence in that country, which is an unacceptable distraction and diversion of resources from the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates worldwide.

Mr. President, first, what a remarkable ally the junior Senator from Rhode Island has been these few months he has been in the Senate. For his eloquence and help on many

issues--particularly this issue--I thank him. I greatly enjoyed listening to his remarks.

It has been 52 months since military operations began in Iraq. We have now been engaged in the Iraq war longer than we were in World War II. Approximately 3,600 Americans have died and 25,000 have been wounded. More than 4 million Iraqis have fled their homes, and tens of thousands, at a minimum, have been killed. With President Bush's surge well underway, violence in Iraq has exploded to unprecedented levels and American troop fatalities are up 70 percent. In short, from all sides, the situation in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.

As if that weren't bad enough, our national security continues to suffer as the administration's single-minded focus on Iraq prevents us from adequately confronting threats of extremism and terrorism around the globe. Indeed, violence and instability continue to fester elsewhere at a great cost to our national security.

Last November, when the American people cast their ballots, they expressed their opposition to this war loudly and clearly. As the situation continues to deteriorate, they have raised their voices still louder. I know my colleagues hear their voices, as more and more of them step forward to call for a long overdue change of course.

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, those voices continue to fall on deaf ears. Time and again, the President has made it clear that nothing--not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military foreign policy experts, not the concerns of members of both parties--will discourage him from pursuing a misguided war that has no end in sight.

Congress cannot wait for this President to change course in Iraq because you and I know he has no intention of doing so. He has made it clear that he will continue to pursue massive military engagement despite the wishes of the American people, despite the fact that our military is stretched to the breaking point, and despite the fact that our presence in Iraq has been, according to our own State Department, ``used as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity in neighboring countries.''

So it is up to us in Congress to listen to the American people, to save American lives, and to ensure our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq. We have the power and we have the responsibility to act, and to act now. That is why I will support the amendment offered by Senators Levin and Jack Reed. By passing binding deadlines for both beginning and ending redeployment, the Senate can take a strong step toward bringing our involvement in this war to a close.

I especially applaud Senators Hagel, Smith, and Snowe for putting principle ahead of party by cosponsoring this amendment. I hope their example inspires still more Senators to realize that it is not enough to just criticize the war or just call on the President to change course and that we don't need to--in fact, we cannot afford to--wait for more reports and more time before taking decisive action.

The Levin-Reed amendment doesn't go as far as I would like. I am concerned that the exception in the amendment, particularly for ``providing logistical support'' to Iraqi troops, would give the administration too much wiggle room to ``repackage'' its military mission instead of redeploying our brave servicemembers. Nonetheless, I am pleased to see so many colleagues--on both sides of the aisle-- recognizing, at last, that the President's course in Iraq has failed, that Congress needs to act, and that we can and must safely redeploy our troops.

Other amendments that have been proposed fall short because they don't require the troops to be redeployed. It is not enough to pass something that sounds good but doesn't move us toward ending the war. Weak, feel-good amendments may give people political comfort, but that won't last long. We can fool ourselves, but we can't fool the American people.

Mr. President, it is increasingly clear that the war in Iraq has become the defining aspect of our engagement in this part of the world and that it, coupled with this administration's inconsistent efforts to promote democracy and the rule of law, has unfortunately alienated and angered those whose support and cooperation we need if we are to prevail against al-Qaida and its allies.

Our role in the war in Iraq has generated a level of political turbulence throughout the region and beyond. It has given way to a new variety of al-Qaida-style militants. These militants are gaining prominence in many countries that have traditionally been our allies. The longer we remain in Iraq, the longer these new strains of extremism will threaten the security of the region and, in turn, threaten our Nation. As long as the President's policies continue, Iraq will continue to be what the declassified National Intelligence Estimate calls a ``cause celebre'' for a new generation of terrorists.

Al-Qaida and its affiliates are not a one-country franchise. Yet this administration continues to pretend otherwise, such as calling Iraq the central front in the war on terror. Al-Qaida's networks have not relinquished their global fight to focus exclusively on Iraq. By deploying our troops from Iraq, we can focus on developing a comprehensive global strategy to combat them around the globe.

As I said, the administration's policies in Iraq are an unmitigated disaster. But there is a way to mitigate that disaster, to lessen the burdens it is imposing on our troops, our national security, our taxpayers, and our country. And that is to redeploy our troops from Iraq.

There is no reason to delay this decision until September. We know now what we will know then, and we know it isn't pretty. We have already read in the Pentagon's first quarterly surge report that violence has increased throughout much of the country in recent months, and we know there is no military solution to Iraq's problems. The only question is how long we are prepared to wait and how many Americans we are willing to have killed before we act.

As my colleagues know, the majority leader and I have introduced legislation that would safely redeploy our troops by setting a date, after which our funding for the war would be ended. That is what Congress did in 1993 with respect to our military mission in Somalia. I continue to believe we must be prepared to take that step again to finally put an end to the war in Iraq.

However, if the Levin-Reed amendment wins the support of a majority of the Senate, I believe that will be an important step forward, and I will likely not insist on a vote on the Feingold-Reid amendment at that time. If our efforts to end the war don't succeed, however, I will offer Feingold-Reid as an amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill when it is considered by the Senate. Of course, I hope that will not be necessary, but it will depend on whether enough of my colleagues are prepared to back up their words with action, to listen to the American people, and to say enough is enough.

This war doesn't make sense. It is hurting our country, and it is time to end it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support the provisions in the 2008 Defense authorization bill that seek to prevent premature deployment of missile defenses in Europe, and I continue to have serious concerns about the operational effectiveness and cost of these technologies. I voted for the amendment offered by Senator Sessions because Iran may develop the capacity to threaten our allies with nuclear weapons and because the amendment supports development of an ``effective defense'' when it is ``technologically possible.'' I will continue encouraging the administration to work with the international community to engage directly with Iran.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007. Just as its name suggests, the Arbitration Fairness Act is designed to return fairness to the arbitration system. This bill is not an anti-arbitration bill. If anything, it is pro- arbitration. I firmly believe that this bill will strengthen the arbitration system by returning arbitration to a more equitable design that reflects the intent of the original arbitration legislation, the Federal Arbitration Act.

President Calvin Coolidge signed the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, into law on February 12, 1925. Congress passed the FAA to make arbitration an enforceable alternative to the civil courts. Even as early as the 1920s, there were concerns about the efficiency of the civil court system and a desire to allow a speedier alternative. The intent of the FAA, as expressed in a 1923 hearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was ``to enable business men to settle their disputes expeditiously and economically.'' In a later hearing on the FAA, it was clarified that the legislation was not intended to apply to the employment contracts of those businesses. This distinction is important because it illustrates that, while arbitration was something that the FAA's original sponsors wanted to promote, they were also careful to make clear that they didn't intend for arbitration to become a weapon to be wielded by the powerful against those with less financial and negotiating power.

Since the FAA's enactment, the use of arbitration has grown exponentially. Arbitration certainly has advantages. It can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I strongly support voluntary, alternative dispute resolution methods, and I believe we ought to encourage their use. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Otherwise arbitration can be used as a weapon by the stronger party against the weaker party.

One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in civil cases in Federal court is contained in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Many States provide a similar right to a jury trial in civil matters filed in State court.

I have been concerned for many years that mandatory arbitration clauses are slowly eroding the legal protections that should be available to all Americans. A large and growing number of corporations now require millions of consumers and employees to sign contracts that include mandatory arbitration clauses. Most of these individuals have little or no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of their contracts and so find themselves having to choose either to accept a mandatory arbitration clause or to forgo securing employment or needed goods and services. Incredibly, mandatory arbitration clauses have been used to prevent individuals from trying to vindicate their civil rights under statutes specifically passed by Congress to protect them.

There is a range of ways in which mandatory arbitration can be particularly hostile to individuals attempting to assert their rights. For example, the administrative fees, both to gain access to the arbitration forum and to pay for the ongoing services of the arbitrator or arbitrator, can be so high as to act as a de facto bar for many individuals who have a claim that requires resolution. In addition, arbitration generally lacks discovery proceedings and other civil due process protections.

Furthermore, there is no meaningful judicial review of arbitrators' decisions. Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is fairly narrow: if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud, or was biased, corrupt, or guilty of misconduct, or exceeded his or her powers. Because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it is a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it.

Unfortunately, in a variety of contexts, employment agreements, credit card agreements, HMO contracts, securities broker contracts, and other consumer and franchise agreements, mandatory arbitration is fast becoming the rule, rather than the exception. The practice of forcing employees to use arbitration has been on the rise since the Supreme Court's Circuit City decision in 2001. Unless Congress acts, the protections it has provided through law for American workers, investors, and consumers, will slowly become irrelevant.

The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007, which I am happy to say will also be introduced in the House by Representative Hank Johnson, D-GA, reinstates the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes be made after the dispute has arisen. The act does not apply to mandatory arbitration systems agreed to in collective bargaining, and it does not prohibit arbitration. What it does do is prevent a party with greater bargaining power from forcing individuals into arbitration through a contractual provision. It will ensure that citizens once again have a true choice between arbitration and the traditional civil court system.

In our system of Government, Congress and State legislatures pass laws and the courts are available to citizens to make sure those laws are enforced. But the rule of law means little if the only forum available to those who believe they have been wronged is an alternative, unaccountable system where the law passed by the legislature does not necessarily apply. This legislation both protects Americans from exploitation and strengthens a valuable alternative method of dispute resolution. These are both worthy ends, and I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in working to pass this important bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007. Just as its name suggests, the Arbitration Fairness Act is designed to return fairness to the arbitration system. This bill is not an anti-arbitration bill. If anything, it is pro- arbitration. I firmly believe that this bill will strengthen the arbitration system by returning arbitration to a more equitable design that reflects the intent of the original arbitration legislation, the Federal Arbitration Act.

President Calvin Coolidge signed the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, into law on February 12, 1925. Congress passed the FAA to make arbitration an enforceable alternative to the civil courts. Even as early as the 1920s, there were concerns about the efficiency of the civil court system and a desire to allow a speedier alternative. The intent of the FAA, as expressed in a 1923 hearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was ``to enable business men to settle their disputes expeditiously and economically.'' In a later hearing on the FAA, it was clarified that the legislation was not intended to apply to the employment contracts of those businesses. This distinction is important because it illustrates that, while arbitration was something that the FAA's original sponsors wanted to promote, they were also careful to make clear that they didn't intend for arbitration to become a weapon to be wielded by the powerful against those with less financial and negotiating power.

Since the FAA's enactment, the use of arbitration has grown exponentially. Arbitration certainly has advantages. It can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I strongly support voluntary, alternative dispute resolution methods, and I believe we ought to encourage their use. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Otherwise arbitration can be used as a weapon by the stronger party against the weaker party.

One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in civil cases in Federal court is contained in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Many States provide a similar right to a jury trial in civil matters filed in State court.

I have been concerned for many years that mandatory arbitration clauses are slowly eroding the legal protections that should be available to all Americans. A large and growing number of corporations now require millions of consumers and employees to sign contracts that include mandatory arbitration clauses. Most of these individuals have little or no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of their contracts and so find themselves having to choose either to accept a mandatory arbitration clause or to forgo securing employment or needed goods and services. Incredibly, mandatory arbitration clauses have been used to prevent individuals from trying to vindicate their civil rights under statutes specifically passed by Congress to protect them.

There is a range of ways in which mandatory arbitration can be particularly hostile to individuals attempting to assert their rights. For example, the administrative fees, both to gain access to the arbitration forum and to pay for the ongoing services of the arbitrator or arbitrator, can be so high as to act as a de facto bar for many individuals who have a claim that requires resolution. In addition, arbitration generally lacks discovery proceedings and other civil due process protections.

Furthermore, there is no meaningful judicial review of arbitrators' decisions. Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is fairly narrow: if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud, or was biased, corrupt, or guilty of misconduct, or exceeded his or her powers. Because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it is a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it.

Unfortunately, in a variety of contexts, employment agreements, credit card agreements, HMO contracts, securities broker contracts, and other consumer and franchise agreements, mandatory arbitration is fast becoming the rule, rather than the exception. The practice of forcing employees to use arbitration has been on the rise since the Supreme Court's Circuit City decision in 2001. Unless Congress acts, the protections it has provided through law for American workers, investors, and consumers, will slowly become irrelevant.

The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007, which I am happy to say will also be introduced in the House by Representative Hank Johnson, D-GA, reinstates the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes be made after the dispute has arisen. The act does not apply to mandatory arbitration systems agreed to in collective bargaining, and it does not prohibit arbitration. What it does do is prevent a party with greater bargaining power from forcing individuals into arbitration through a contractual provision. It will ensure that citizens once again have a true choice between arbitration and the traditional civil court system.

In our system of Government, Congress and State legislatures pass laws and the courts are available to citizens to make sure those laws are enforced. But the rule of law means little if the only forum available to those who believe they have been wronged is an alternative, unaccountable system where the law passed by the legislature does not necessarily apply. This legislation both protects Americans from exploitation and strengthens a valuable alternative method of dispute resolution. These are both worthy ends, and I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in working to pass this important bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in keeping with my practice of deferring to Presidents when it comes to executive branch nominations, I voted to confirm LTG Douglas Lute to serve as Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a competent officer with a history of service to this Nation. However, I am deeply concerned that rather than changing course in Iraq, the President is merely rearranging the bureaucracy in the White House.

The administration needs to better coordinate the U.S. Government's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am

pleased that Lieutenant General Lute has acknowledged that the U.S. military alone cannot stabilize Iraq and that enhanced efforts by other agencies of the Federal Government are needed.

However, I am skeptical that this new position will have a significant impact given that the President still refuses to admit that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. Until the President recognizes the need to redeploy our troops from Iraq and seek international assistance in promoting a political resolution, I am afraid that Lieutenant General Lute's efforts will simply contribute to more of the same failed policy. I will continue working to redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can devote greater resources to our top national security priority--going after the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and their allies.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss the confirmation of Lieutenant General Dell Lee Dailey as the Coordinator in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism.

Lieutenant General Dailey has had a distinguished military career. There can be no question about that. He is a graduate of West Point and has served as a battalion commander, regiment commander, and assistant division commander both at posts in the United States and abroad. Most recently, he served as director at the Center for Special Operations at MacDill Air Force Base. He has received numerous awards for his excellence including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Defense Superior Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals and six Meritorious Service Medals. He has spent his entire life defending this nation and I thank him for service.

The position to which he was confirmed last Friday is that of the State Department's Coordinator for the Office of Counterterrorism. While I did not object to Lieutenant General Dailey's confirmation, as a member of both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence, I would like to register my concerns.

While the nomination of a military official to a civilian post does not by itself cause concerns, this particular position requires an ability to develop and implement interagency strategies and to encourage the use of and mobilize non-DOD assets. In the context of this administration's tendency to employ military options against strategic problems, or to assign nonmilitary functions to the Department of Defense, it is particularly important that the Coordinator for Counterterrorism demonstrate a commitment to expanding and utilizing the resources of the State Department, USAID and other agencies of the U.S. Government.

I have talked with General Dailey and reviewed his writings, including a 2006 article in which he wrote that Special Operations forces, ``doing what they do best,'' are ``developing links within the population that will provide ongoing intelligence and personal relationships that will cement ties with allies around the world.'' When it comes to military engagements, Special Operations forces may, in fact, have this role. But in most of the countries and regions of the world where we are fighting al-Qaida and seeking to deny it safe haven, these activities should not fall to the Department of Defense. Indeed, ``developing links within the population'' and ``cement[ing] ties with allies around the world'' are the jobs of our diplomats. And, in far-flung regions of the world, where a U.S. diplomatic presence or foreign aid program can help deny terrorist organizations safe haven, we should be working to expand those efforts, not deferring to the Department of Defense. This is critical for four reasons. First, our diplomats and foreign assistance professionals have the background and training to conduct these activities. Second, regardless of the skills of Special Operations forces, the very fact that uniformed officers are at the forefront of local diplomacy can be counterproductive by encouraging or reinforcing perceptions that U.S. policy is driven by our military. Third, if policy is to guide counterterrorism efforts-- and that is the whole point of the Coordinator position--then diplomats, not soldiers, need to be leading the way. And, finally, we need our military to do what it does best in the struggle against al- Qaida and its allies, and that is conduct tactical operations as well as work directly with host country militaries and regional peacekeeping forces. The overextension of Special Operations or other military forces for other missions takes away from these efforts.

We need only look at Africa, where strategic counterterrorism policies are desperately needed, to understand the challenges ahead. In Somalia, DOD operations have been conducted in a near policy vacuum. Tactical efforts have not, and will not, address the conditions that have allowed terrorist organizations safe haven. Yet violence and instability continue to fester, at great cost to our national security, without adequate diplomatic, humanitarian or foreign assistance efforts. Elsewhere on the continent, in regions where extremism can take hold and where terrorist organizations might find sympathetic populations, neither the State Department nor USAID has sought to maintain a presence. Finally, AFRICOM's recent difficulties in finding a willing host country illustrate how diplomatic initiatives must precede efforts to expand our military footprint. I have supported AFRICOM and believe that African nations will recognize what the command may have to offer, but we must acknowledge that governments and local populations alike remain skeptical of initiatives that seem driven by our military.

It is in this context that I sought from General Dailey an understanding of this critical position, one whose primary mission is ``to forge partnerships with non-state actors, multilateral organizations, and foreign governments to advance the counterterrorism objectives and national security of the United States.'' At his nomination hearing, I asked him the following question:

What points of collaboration do you see for the relative

roles of U.S. military action, military assistance and

nonmilitary assistance in the war against international

terrorism?

Lieutenant General Dailey's response was:

The military has a huge source of non-lethal, non-kinetic

resources that Department of State and the other agencies, I

think, can rely on to be successful in that portion of the

war on terror that gets to the hearts and minds of the

people. Civil affairs operations, public diplomacy--right now

the Special Operations organizations have about 15 or 20

teams that help in public diplomacy that work specifically

for the ambassadors in the embassies. That's just a small

snapshot of what the military can bring to the table.

Unfortunately, this response appears to reflect the mindset of someone who sees combating terrorism through a military, or at least Department of Defense, prism. This answer suggests a lack of appreciation for the need to incorporate and balance civil, intelligence, and military initiatives when coordinating a U.S. counterterrorism strategy. It is not that the answer is wrong; it indicates a keen understanding of what the Department of Defense can bring to the table. But the Department of Defense does not need more champions in the interagency process. What is needed is a champion for the role of other agencies and departments, for aggressive diplomacy, for expanded foreign assistance efforts, for antipoverty and anticorruption programs that complement broader counterterrorism strategies, for effective public diplomacy, and for multilateral cooperation, including strengthening regional organizations in places like Africa and rediscovering the common ground with our allies in Europe and elsewhere that we had immediately after September 11.

I recognize that these challenges present an extremely high bar for any nominee. I also recognize that this nomination is colored by the failure of this administration to develop and implement effective interagency counterterrorism strategies. But it is precisely because of the critical importance of this position and the need for the nominee to resist this administration's overemphasis on military options that I have regarded General Dailey's nomination with such scrutiny. I do not register these concerns lightly and now that he has been confirmed, I look forward to working with General Dailey on developing coherent and comprehensive counterterrorism strategies, coordinating true interagency efforts and promoting the use of our diplomatic and other nonmilitary resources that are so critical to success in the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Mr. President, last week this body passed energy legislation that finally sets the U.S. energy policy in a new, positive direction. In 2005, I opposed the Energy bill because it did not establish a sound and fiscally responsible energy policy. The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 will help wean the United States of oil dependence, encourage the development of renewable energy, and promote energy efficiency, and I was pleased to support it.

The bill includes many important provisions. A renewable fuel standard of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022 will help spur the development of advanced fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, which holds a lot of promise for my home State of Wisconsin. The bill also includes anti-price gouging language, based on Senator Cantwell's bill that I cosponsored, to protect consumers from price gouging by sellers and distributors of oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates during natural disasters and abnormal market disruptions.

The bill also includes a proposal of mine that supports local renewable energy--an issue I am committed to advancing and hear a lot about during the listening sessions I annually hold in every county of Wisconsin. My amendment, cosponsored by Senators Sanders and Menendez, guarantees that a new energy and environmental block grant program would provide resources to cities and counties nationwide to reduce fossil fuel emissions, reduce energy use, and improve energy efficiency while ensuring these improvements do not harm the environment and retain the benefits of activities within the local community, such as encouraging local or cooperative ownership of bioenergy efforts.

Our Nation's addiction to oil poses a significant threat to our economy, our security, and our environment. The Federal Government should allow and encourage State and local governments to improve their energy policies while creating opportunities for rural Americans to produce and benefit from renewable energy. My amendment is based on my larger effort to increase opportunities for rural America outlined in my Rural Opportunities Act. Introduced in February 2007, the Rural Opportunities Act helps sustain and strengthen rural economies for the future and create more opportunities in rural communities. A crucial component of the bill is ensuring that the potential benefits from domestic renewable energy are gained in an environmentally responsible manner that benefits local communities.

During debate on this important bill, I also supported several efforts to improve it. I was pleased to cosponsor several successful amendments including one offered by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal, and make colluding oil-producing nations liable in U.S. court for violations of antitrust law. I also cosponsored the amendment from the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, that states the sense of Congress that America's agricultural, forestry, and working lands should provide 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States from renewable sources by the year 2025 while continuing to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.

I supported an amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, that sets aggressive targets for reducing oil consumption by 10,000 billion barrels a day by 2030. The language is simple--it sets our goal, and we have to figure out how to get there. We are a country of innovators. Whether it is wind, solar, biodiesel, or a technology we still have not dreamed of yet, we can--and we must--break our addiction to oil. This bold, aggressive amendment can help ensure that we meet our goal of real energy independence and security.

Any plan to move away from our dependence on oil needs to address fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles. In the last few years, I have joined a majority of my Senate colleagues in supporting legislation requiring the administration to increase fuel efficiency, but we have so far been unsuccessful in getting this requirement enacted. I supported a proposal from several of my colleagues, including Senators Pryor and Levin, that was crafted to increase fuel efficiency standards substantially without jeopardizing the jobs of many hard-working Wisconsinites. It is unfortunate this amendment was never offered. I will be following the House and Senate conference closely to ensure that the final bill strikes the right balance on this issue.

I am also disappointed that the Senate was unable to muster the necessary votes to overcome Republican objections to a tax package reported by the Finance Committee that would boost energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The cost of these new or extended tax incentives was fully offset. It is also unfortunate that the Senate could not once again pass a renewable portfolio standard to ensure that all States' utilities are producing a minimum percentage of renewable energy. My home State of Wisconsin is one of about 20 States that currently have such a standard, but a Federal standard would help level the playing field.

It is encouraging, however, that the Senate soundly rejected proposals to mandate the use of and direct Federal money to develop coal-to-liquid facilities. Private investors have not been willing to invest in this technology in the United States because of significant capital costs and risks, not to mention the unproven technology to capture and store greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy security is an important issue for America and one which my Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. I am pleased this bill rejects the efforts of some of my colleagues to insist on drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would sacrifice one of America's greatest natural treasures for a supply of oil that would not significantly enhance our energy security. The supply of oil in the Arctic Refuge may not last more than a year, would not be available for many years to come, and would decrease gas prices by only a penny when the Refuge is at its highest

rate of production. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge does nothing to address the immediate need of the Federal Government to respond to fluctuations in gas prices and help expand refining capacity. Those who offer the Refuge as the solution to our need for energy independence are pointing us in the wrong direction.

This year's Energy bill finally moves past this misguided debate and other fiscally and environmentally irresponsible proposals. The United States is at an important juncture. By supporting the Energy bill, I am supporting a new direction for our Nation's energy policy: one that encourages renewable energy, conservation of the resources we have, and American innovation.

Mr. President, the international community's effort to press Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment has been virtually grounded as of late and there does not seem to be a way out. This deadlock is of great concern to me--particularly because of the threat Iran poses to our national security strategy but also because I do not trust this administration to make the right choices when it comes to our safety and security.

As a known sponsor of international terrorism, and in light of President Ahmadinejad's belligerent statements calling for Israel to be ``wiped off the map,'' we must redouble our efforts to ensure Iran is no longer allowed to violate international treaties, does not develop nuclear weapons, and does not become any more of a threat to our national security than it already is.

History has taught us that we cannot ignore the stated intent of those who seek to destroy other nations. A nuclear Iran would be a grave threat to the region, to Israel, and to the entire international community but that does not mean we should act rashly or act alone. Indeed, recent history has also shown that we are at our strongest--and most secure--when we are part of a strong multilateral team.

And yet, the Bush administration's saber-rattling flies in the face of any effort to legitimately build consensus for effective dealings with Iran. Our allies at the United Nations have worked with us in the past to support a resolution sanctioning Iran but they may not be willing to work with us again if these confrontations in the Persian Gulf become habitual occurrences. Such threats are stunningly counterproductive as they embolden Iranian hardliners to dig in their heels, undermine our multilateral commitments, and jeopardize our national security significantly.

Iran's ability to sniff out and exploit fissures within the international community and use it to their advantage should not be underestimated. Knowing this, it is in the interest of our national security to ensure there is strong unanimity among our allies at the United Nations. Critical to this effort is cooperation from Russia and China. To ensure they are on board, this administration must prioritize robust diplomacy with these two countries to ensure they are on board and engaged. Without them, there can be no real headway.

Just last month an International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, report said that Iran has not suspended its enrichment activities and we must take this claim very seriously. We must work with our allies to take concerted, decisive action to break this stalemate. The Security Council must speak with one voice and send a clear signal that continued defiance of the international community will not be tolerated.

It is essential that all U.N. member states and the international community, more generally, continue to condemn the violent and defiant rhetoric of Iran's President. If his aggressive words go unchecked it could signal approval of the Iranian regime's determination to undermine its international obligations.

This Congress can also take critical steps to stop or slow Iran's nuclear enrichment, but we will not be effective in doing so unless we acknowledge that the United States must be in lock-step with the international community if we are to overcome decades of mistrust and ongoing threats to our national security.

Mr. President, since joining this body in 1993, I have supported a number of initiatives to help the hard working men and women of this country, including increasing the minimum wage, supporting equal pay for America's workers, and promoting better trade policies. One piece of legislation that would help American workers is the Employee Free Choice Act, EFCA, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of EFCA again this Congress. I commend my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his hard work on this legislation, as well as his longstanding dedication to improving the quality of life for America's working people.

One of the best things we can do for American workers is to remove obstacles that make it harder for them to form and join unions. As many of my colleagues will likely point out in the course of this debate, more than 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union today if they could. Further, workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than nonunion workers, are 62 percent more likely to have employer- provided health care, and are four times more likely to have a pension. Better wages and better benefits help lift Americans out of poverty and into the middle class. Far too many Americans are working for wages that keep them at or below the Federal poverty line with little, if any, opportunity to bargain for better wages and benefits or advance to a better-paying position.

The Employee Free Choice Act would address some of the inequities in the current system of collective bargaining in the U.S. Many critics of this legislation focus on the card check provision, but there is much more to this legislation than just the method of voting. This bill provides for first-contract mediation and arbitration. Importantly, if an agreement has not been reached after 90 days of negotiations, either the employer or the employees can refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for mediation. Clearly, under the ideal negotiation this would not be necessary, but it is an important option for employees to have in the collective bargaining process. The bill also provides for stronger penalties for employer violations while employees are attempting to form a union. Employers who intimidate workers attempting to unionize should face appropriate consequences.

While I understand that the vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Employee Free Choice Act may not be successful this week, this fight is far from over. Over the last 2 years, I have received over 1,500 letters, calls, and e-mails in support of this legislation from my constituents, and their voices mean a great deal. I support passage of this legislation for the hard-working Wisconsinites who deserve better from us. I am disappointed that more of my colleagues have not joined in supporting this bill, and I hope that they will rethink their opposition to this bill. I will continue working to pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, when the United States went to war with Iraq in 2003, a number of observers feared that a massive humanitarian crisis could occur if a smooth transition was not successful. Despite the quick collapse of Saddam Hussein's

dictatorship, the heroic performance of our servicemembers, and the predictions of some in the administration, the transition was far from smooth. Nonetheless, we did not initially see a humanitarian emergency in Iraq.

Four years later, however, this emergency is now unfolding in the cruelest of ways. With Iraq enmeshed in civil war, the relentless violence has displaced numerous civilians not only within Iraq but outside of it as well.

There are a range of possible factors behind the current situation: as the war is increasingly defined by its sectarian nature, the growing potential for neighborhoods to be ``cleansed'' by one ethnicity or another may accelerate displacement patterns; the overall increase in violence that occurred following the golden dome shrine bombing of February 2006 may have served as a catalyst that changed the face of the war and the tactics of those fighting it.

Regardless of the reasons, the results are clear--millions of Iraqis have been forced from their homes because of entrenched fear and rampant violence. Basic survival needs such as food, clean water, shelter, sanitation, and health care are in short supply. The government infrastructure has collapsed--if it ever truly existed-- taking with it the communities it served.

The U.N. High Commission for Refugees estimates that there are nearly 2 million displaced people within Iraq and close to 2.5 million seeking refuge in neighboring countries. In total, that is almost 4.5 million people, Mr. President, 4.5 million individuals or approximately 13 percent of the total Iraqi population. Many of these individuals are from Iraq's shattered middle class and will be critical to rebuilding the country. But who can say where they will be when that time comes and whether they will be willing or able to contribute to that process.

The United States has admitted only a small number of Iraqi refugees since the beginning of the war. According to the State Department, there have been just 687 Iraqi refugees admitted to the United States since the war began in 2003. We have a particular responsibility to provide aid and safe haven for Iraqis whose lives are threatened because they worked for us.

Fortunately, many neighboring countries have been willing to step up to the plate and allow those Iraqis fleeing their homeland to seek temporary shelter despite the fact that many of their needs are straining the already weak and overburdened social services. Indeed, most of Iraq's neighbors are unable to provide adequate assistance to those living within their borders, citizens and refugees alike. The introduction of more than 2 million additional people into these already precarious environments could tip the balance in the wrong direction.

This humanitarian disaster is emblematic of this administration's poor planning when it comes to virtually every aspect of the war in Iraq. The administration's failure to respond adequately to the needs of these refugees and displaced people will have dramatic consequences for regional and global stability. We still have a chance to reverse course in Iraq, however, to refocus our strategy, and regain our credibility so we can work with the international community and resolve this crisis appropriately.

Mr. President, this week Wisconsin is honored to host more than 600 veterans and athletes for the National Veterans Wheelchair Games in Milwaukee. At the largest annual wheelchair sports event in the world, hundreds of veterans who made tremendous sacrifices for our Nation will demonstrate not only their remarkable athletic abilities but also their unmatched courage and determination in the face of adversity.

World-class wheelchair athletes and newly disabled veterans will join together in Milwaukee for 17 competitive events and 2 exhibition events. The National Veterans Wheelchair Games is a great sporting event, and it is also a chance for athletes to develop lasting friendships with other veterans who have faced and overcome similar obstacles.

I thank the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee and the Wisconsin Chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America for hosting the games, as well as the VA officials and volunteers who helped to make these games a reality. More than 3400 Wisconsinites are showing their support by volunteering during the games.

I encourage these athletes and their families to explore their unique and dynamic host city. I hope everyone has the opportunity to experience Milwaukee's wonderful lakefront and sample the outstanding food and drink that Milwaukee is known for.

I know Milwaukee will give a warm welcome to all the competitors and visitors who have come to the city for this week's games. Their competitive spirit and the incredible sacrifices they have made bravely serving our Nation are an inspiration to us all. I hope everyone enjoys what is sure to be an exciting and memorable week.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the memory of Jeff Erlanger, an extraordinary person who was a prominent member of the Madison community, a family friend, and an inspiration to me and everyone lucky enough to know him.

To understand what a positive force Jeff was in people's lives, I will quote something he said in an ad he did for Wisconsin Public Television a few years ago: ``It doesn't matter what I can't do--what matters is what I can do.'' Those are words that everyone should live by, but Jeff, who was a quadriplegic, really did live by them. He never dwelled on the many challenges he faced; instead, he focused on helping others, making tremendous contributions of time and effort to a wide array of organizations.

He served on the Economic Development Commission, as chairman of the Commission on People with Disabilities, and as chairman of the board of the Community Living Alliance, as well as many other positions. Among his accomplishments was his successful push for the accessible taxicab service that exists in Madison today. He also ran for the Madison City Council in 2002. Jeff's commitment to public service says volumes about the kind of person he was and why his passing is such a loss for the Madison community.

Jeff used his personal experience to inspire others, visiting classrooms to talk about living with a disability, and appearing on ``Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood'' at the age of 10. He became good friends with Fred Rogers, speaking both at Rogers' induction to the Television Academy Hall of Fame and at a memorial service when Rogers passed away in 2003.

Throughout his adulthood, he continued to make life-changing connections with people he met. Incredibly, he saved the life of a Boston woman he was talking with online, calling both AOL and the Boston police after she told him she had cut her wrists but wouldn't tell him what her last name was or where she lived. They tracked the woman down and rushed her to an emergency room. It is just one amazing story from a truly amazing life.

I am proud to say that Jeff was an intern in my office. He was also a dear friend to members of my family. He meant so much to so many people, both those he knew, those he inspired through his appearances, and those he helped through his life of community service. I am deeply saddened by his passing, and my thoughts are with his parents, his family, and his friends. Jeff left behind a wonderful legacy, of hope, enthusiasm, and caring, and that is something everyone who knew him can cherish.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that should, and could, have been law 1 year ago, the Military Family Support Act. This bill provides modest but significant relief for the families of the brave American soldiers deployed overseas. I was disappointed that, after passing the Senate last year as an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Defense Department authorization bill, this provision was removed in conference. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Casey.

As part of the predeployment process, military personnel with dependent children or other dependent family members designate a caregiver for their dependents. Dependents may be children, elderly parents, an ill sibling; anyone who requires care. These caregivers act in the deployed personnel's place to provide care during the period of deployment. The caregiver could be a spouse, parent, sibling, or other responsible adult who is capable of caring, and willing to care, for the dependents in question.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Military Family Support Act, would create two programs to provide additional leave options for persons who have been designated as caregivers. The bill would require the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to create a program under which Federal employees who are designated as caregivers could use accrued annual or sick leave, leave bank benefits, and other leave available to them under title 5 for purposes directly relating to or resulting from their designation as a caregiver.

The second program would be administered by the Department of Labor for private sector employees. The Department would create a voluntary program, allowing private sector companies to create similar programs for their employees. Many companies across the country are already working with employees to provide support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty. I commend these companies for their compassion and understanding, and I hope that this program would expand such options to more workers.

Lastly, this bill would require a report from the Government Accountability Office evaluating both the OPM and voluntary private sector program. If the report demonstrates that the program has helped military families, which I believe it will, Congress may act to expand the programs or make them permanent.

I want to be clear that the legislation I am introducing today specifically exempts Family Medical Leave Act leave from the types of leave that can be used by designated caregivers under this legislation. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to expand the FMLA to cover leave for designated caregivers. That legislation, however, met with opposition from some Members who object to the FMLA itself. While I continue to believe that this opposition is misguided and that family members of deployed servicemembers should be able to take leave under the FMLA, I have drafted this compromise measure to address those concerns.

This legislation has been endorsed by the National Military Family Association, the National Partnership for Women and Families, and the Military Officers Association of America.

In small towns and big cities all over this country, family members of deployed servicemembers are struggling to care for their children without their spouses' help. In addition, many servicemembers care for elderly parents and this responsibility often falls to a sibling or spouse when that servicemember is deployed abroad. While we may not be able to promise the safe return of each one of these brave men and women, we can provide this modest relief to their families here at home. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield the floor.

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