Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Cantwell's amendment to strike section 401 from the budget reconciliation bill. I thank her for her dedication to protecting the Arctic Refuge, for her great deal of work over the years on this very important issue, and especially for her leadership today.

As I have said numerous times, I am deeply disappointed that the budget process is being abused to open the Refuge to oil and gas activities.

The Senator from New Mexico said he is going to hear Senators come out and say this isn't the way to do it. He is right. This isn't the way to do it. I have tried to make this point in the Budget Committee for 2 years. This isn't the way to make policy relating to energy, and I deeply regret that we have to be out here on the floor dealing with this. It should have been disposed of in the Budget Committee, as it is a matter not appropriate for this setting.

Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is something that has been, and should continue to be, discussed in an open debate instead of as part a back- door maneuver. This is a debate about energy and environmental policy, as everybody knows. This is not about the Nation's budget. I believe that this back-door tactic is an abuse of the reconciliation process. It reflects poorly on this body, Mr. President, and invites greater mischief down the line.

Sadly, regardless of when or where we have this debate, we have it because of a failure, most recently encapsulated by this administration's flawed Energy bill, to provide the American public with an energy policy that actually looks to the future. There is no doubt that we, as a nation, face tough questions about our energy policy. However, it is clear that offering the Refuge as the solution points us in the wrong direction. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a shortsighted sacrifice of one of America's greatest natural treasures, all for a supply of oil that may not last more than a year, would not be available for

many years to come, and, as the Senator from Washington pointed out, would decrease gas prices by only a penny at its highest production. Instead of such a backward plan, we need a forward-looking national energy policy that responsibly moves away from our dependence on a finite resource such as oil and toward greater energy independence. I regret that the administration's only answer to our energy crisis is to attempt to drill their way out of it.

Beyond my objection to the abuse of process and to the failure of our energy policy, I have several concerns about the specific language included in this bill.

First, I have grave concerns that we are basing our revenue assumptions on false financial pretenses. To achieve the $2.4 billion required by the budget reconciliation, which, for comparison purposes, is equal to 3 weeks' worth of ExxonMobil's 2005 third quarter profits, we are proceeding on the assumption that companies will bid an average of $3,333 for each and every acre of the 1.5 million acres of Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge. However, over the last 15 years, bonus bids for acreage on Alaska's North Slope have averaged approximately $60 per acre, which is 98 percent less than what is required for purposes of this budget reconciliation. Assuming the leases on areas with unknown deposits will sell for more than 50 times the historical average is just plain fiscally irresponsible. Fundamentally, the reality of the leasing situation does not seem to coincide with the revenues we assume today.

Second, supposing that the revenues actually do reach the presumed level, the U.S. Treasury, and the U.S. taxpayer, may never see the money associated with opening the Refuge.

Both the State of Alaska and the Alaskan delegation have made it clear that the State is likely to sue to receive 90 percent of the leasing revenues instead of the 50 percent stated in this language. In fact, this spring, the Alaska legislature passed a resolution that said they opposed ``any attempt to coerce the State of Alaska into accepting less than the 90 percent of the oil, gas, and mineral royalties from the Federal land in Alaska that was promised to the State at statehood.'' The Alaskan resolution makes it clear, as I have stated before, that the debate over the Refuge is about energy policy and not about the budget, and it doesn't belong in the budget reconciliation package which is before us today.

Finally, the language included in this bill fails to grant the same fundamental protections to the Arctic Refuge as we grant to every square inch of the other Federal lands on which drilling occurs. Why does the bill fail to provide the Arctic Refuge with fundamental environmental protections? Simply because the Energy Committee argues that the Federal Government can meet the budgetary time constraints only by ignoring the established laws of the land. By slashing environmental protections so that they are lower than on any other Federal land, we are all but guaranteeing that the Coastal Plain will suffer unnecessary, preventable, and irreversible damage. This is no way to treat the crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System.

Mr. President, the language of the underlying provision is based on risky lease bid assumptions, it leaves the door open to diminished Federal revenues, and it gives the Refuge fewer environmental protections than all other Federal lands that produce oil. It has no place in this reconciliation bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support Senator Cantwell's amendment.

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the situation in Zanzibar, Tanzania.

Just last month, Zanzibaris went to the polls in Presidential and parliamentary elections. I commend the strong voter turnout and the understandable desire of Zanzibaris that their votes be counted. Unfortunately, the people of Zanzibar have so far been denied the accountable and transparent election process they deserve. This is a cruel repeat of the Presidential and parliamentary elections held in 1995 and 2000, which were widely considered to have been mismanaged, resulting in serious irregularities. Credible allegations were made after the 2000 elections that votes were manipulated to deny the opposition Civic United Front, CUF, victory in Zanzibar.

Even more disturbing was the violent aftermath of the 2000 elections. In 2001, demonstrators protesting election abuses in Zanzibar and Pemba met with a brutal police response in which 32 people died, hundreds were arrested, and countless others fled to neighboring countries for asylum. These events were deeply troubling and underscored the need for real reform to ensure that violence and serious irregularities in the electoral process were not repeated. I traveled to Pemba in the aftermath of these troubling events, and in my conversations with local residents and leaders, I sensed real frustration with the failure of the Tanzanian authorities and the international community to speak out on behalf of the civil and political rights of the people of Zanzibar.

The Mukata II agreement established in 2002 gave rise to hope for change. Reforms under this agreement, agreed to by all parties and implemented in the 2003 local elections in Pemba, gave further reason to believe that the rights of the Zanzibari people would now be respected. Unfortunately, while the Mukata II agreement set out to improve transparency and ensure that election results are credible to parties, it appears today that Zanzibari voters' rights are again being ignored.

Once again, serious allegations of voting irregularities and unfair preelection conditions have surfaced, including double voting, inaccurate voter lists which prevented eligible voters from casting ballots, and media bias. Once again, reports speak to the use of excessive force against civilians protesting these injustices.

The Government of Tanzania and the Government of Zanzibar have a responsibility to pursue accountability for past abuses and transparency in the political process. The U.S. Government has a responsibility, too. To turn a blind eye to the abuses that have taken and are taking place in Zanzibar is inconsistent with our principles, and it is, frankly, inconsistent with our interests. Zanzibar's population is nearly entirely Muslim. Given all the hostility, all of the suspicion, and all of

the resentment of American foreign policy that exists in the Muslim world, we cannot afford to be indifferent to this kind of injustice. I call on the administration to provide Congress with a plan to work with the rest of the donor community to send strong, unmistakable signals to the Tanzanian Government that the disenfranchisement of the people of Zanzibar is simply unacceptable.

Mr. President, earlier this fall, Senator Kohl and I introduced a resolution marking the dedication of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness Area within the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Today, the same day the Senate will officially pay tribute to Senator Nelson, we proudly reintroduced our resolution.

On December 8, 2004, approximately 80 percent of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin was designated the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. Although we did not formally celebrate the new wilderness area until August 8, 2005, we have been delighting in the designation ever since December of last year.

The designation of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness within the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore on August 8, 2005, was a tremendous occasion for both Wisconsin and the country. I was deeply honored to participate in the ceremony marking the creation of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. I knew Gaylord, and am proud to occupy his Senate seat. Like all of those in attendance at the dedication ceremony, including Tia Nelson, Governor Doyle, Congressman Obey, local officials, tribal chairs, and many others, I was deeply saddened that Gaylord wasn't able to be sitting among us, having passed away on July 3, 2005.

However, I do believe that because the area, the magnificent Apostles, and the wilderness designation we were celebrating were such a part of Gaylord, he was in fact there with us that day, urging us to mark the achievement and to continue his life's work of building a national conservation ethic. As we all know, while his record of achievements is long and impressive, it is Senator Nelson's passion and commitment to protecting our environment that will remain the centerpiece of his legacy. For this reason, Senator Kohl and I have submitted a resolution to bring recognition to Gaylord's unwavering efforts on behalf of the environment and to celebrate the dedication of a wilderness area rightly named in his honor.

Gaylord so believed in his responsibility to the environment that he started a revolution that has inspired millions of people from across the globe. The day he created in 1970--Earth Day--has become a cause for celebration, education, and reflection for all. Simply stated, Gaylord Nelson changed the consciousness of a nation, and quite possibly the world. He was a distinguished Governor and Senator, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of

Freedom, and a personal hero of mine. Most importantly, he was the embodiment of the principle that one person can change the world.

August 8, 2005, marked the beginning of a new period for the Apostle Islands, and I could not be more proud of this. In 1998, Representative Obey and I asked for a wilderness survey. Seven years later, we finally gathered to salute the awe-inspiring resource as well as the man who dedicated himself to protecting our environment, particularly those places where we humans are but humble visitors--wilderness areas. Let us not forget, however, that before we could talk about having a wilderness area within the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, we had to have a National Lakeshore. I am sure it will come as no surprise that Gaylord was essential in the effort to recognize the Apostle Islands as a national treasure.

The wild and primitive nature of the Apostles and now the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness has always been an attraction, not only for Wisconsin residents but for people from across the globe. At the Apostles you can find pristine old growth forests; wetlands that are home to an astounding ecological diversity; birds that travel long distances and use the islands for respite; and amphibians, which can act as indicators of the park's environmental health.

It is a truly amazing place.

And people know it. In fact, just recently, the Apostles was rated the No. 1 National Park in the U.S. by National Geographic Traveler. The rating was based on a variety of factors, most notably environmental and ecological quality, social and cultural integrity, and the outlook for the future.

We have it all in the park--ecological and cultural resources intertwined with one another. The history of the islands is a history of people living off, and very much in balance with, the land and water surrounding them. A visit to the Apostles and the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness can be, if we let go of the trappings of modern society, an enlightening voyage that challenges us to think about those who came before us, those who will follow us, and the connections between us and the natural resources we depend on for our survival.

The Ojibwae, who Wisconsinites know were the original inhabitants of the Apostles, had great respect for the resources. They believed in taking something only if they were giving something in return. The Ojibwae people understood their dependence on the environment long before many others began contemplating such a relationship. Unfortunately, as a society, we have not always heeded their example. We must be better stewards of our land, our air, and our water. Gaylord pushed us toward that goal every day of his life. And, what better way to mark the dedication of the Wilderness Area named in his honor than for each of us to dedicate ourselves to actively carrying his legacy forward. That is Gaylord's challenge for all of us.

So many people supported the creation of the Lakeshore and the wilderness area. The support has taken many forms--all of which have added to the success of our park and the wilderness designation. I am especially grateful for the families that have donated their properties, many of which are filled with childhood and other cherished family memories, for the betterment of the whole Apostle Islands and now the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. Future generations whom none of us will ever know will benefit deeply from their commitment to one of Wisconsin's most treasured places.

Every time I visit the Apostles and pieces of what are now the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, I depart with a sense of inner peace and clarity. A New York Times journalist wrote about the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in 1972, saying he encountered a ``silence so intense you can hear it.'' I believe that what all those who visit the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness are bound to hear through that ``intense silence'' is Gaylord himself calling them to action.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor the amendment that will be offered by my good friend, the Senator from North Dakota. There is no Senator more dedicated to a fiscally responsible Federal budget and to restoring sound budget rules than Senator Conrad. I have had the pleasure of watching him do his work, now in his 13th year of leadership on this issue. He is an acknowledged expert on the budget and the rules that govern its consideration.

You don't actually have to be a Kent Conrad to understand the pay-go rule. As he said, it is very straightforward. It is a commonsense requirement. Whenever Congress wants to spend money through entitlements or the Tax Code, we have to pay for it. That rule, as he pointed out in the past few minutes, has been an effective restraint on the appetites of Congress and the White House, and it was absolutely critical to our ability and success in balancing the Federal books during the 1990s.

It is no coincidence that when this body stopped following that rule, the bottom dropped out from under the budget. Four and a half years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in the 10 years thereafter, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. Now we are staring at what is almost a mirror image of that 10-year projection, except instead of healthy surpluses under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing immense deficits and backbreaking debt.

This has to stop. Running deficits causes the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.

As Senator Conrad has noted, it isn't just the annual budget deficits that are the problem, it is our debt. Every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits.

As I noted before during the pay-go debates we have had over the years, when the Government in this generation chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their choices, to which I think they should be entitled, just as we have been. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but what we are doing here is saddling them with the debts they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work, and that is not right.

That is why I am proud to join Senator Conrad in offering this amendment to reinstate the pay-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline. When the pay-go rule was in effect, that tough fiscal discipline governed the budget process. Under the current approach, it is exactly the other way around. The annual budget resolution determines how much fiscal discipline we are willing to impose on ourselves and that, obviously, simply has not worked.

When Congress decides it would be nice to create a new entitlement or enact new tax cuts, and then adjusts its budget rules to assist those policies, we are inviting a disastrous result. And that is exactly what we have seen happen.

As I noted during the budget resolution, if you want to lose weight, you set the total calories you are allowed to consume first, and then you make the meals fit under that cap. It is not the other way around. Imagine trying to lose weight by deciding what you want to eat first and then setting the calorie limit to accommodate your cravings. If you want to eat cake, fine; dial up the limit on your calorie intake. If you want a couple of extra beers--which, of course, in Wisconsin

we are fond of--that is fine, too. Raise the calorie limit accordingly.

It may taste pretty good at the time but one will probably almost certainly end up gaining weight, just like this Nation is racking up debt.

Because this ill-advised diet is exactly how the current mutated version of pay-go works, and we have seen the results, the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren that we will have has been putting on massive amounts of weight. This amendment that the Senator from North Dakota will offer would simply return us to the rule under which Congress operated for the decade of the 1990s.

As the Chair well knows, it was instrumental in balancing the Federal budget. Many of us lived under that rule, and we know how effective it was. This amendment is a truth test. Our colleagues who are genuinely serious about reducing the deficit and returning to a balanced budget will vote for it.

A real pay-go rule by itself will not eliminate the annual budget deficits and balance the budget, but we also know that we will never get there without a real pay-go rule.

I, again, thank Senator Conrad for his leadership on this and the other critical budget issues and I strongly urge my colleagues to support his commonsense, time-tested amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the words of the Senator from West Virginia. In that light, let me point out that last night the Senate adopted a unanimous consent agreement to resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Under the agreement, each side would be allowed to offer 12 amendments to the bill, all of which must relate to the bill or the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee.

Let me start by congratulating the Democratic leader for working tirelessly to bring this bill back before the Senate. Senator Reid recognizes that Congress has a responsibility to the American people and to our brave men and women in uniform to debate and pass a responsible Department of Defense authorization bill. I thank him for his efforts.

Congress has an additional responsibility, and that is to put our Iraq policy right and return the focus of our country to our top national security goals. That policy, and particularly the failure of the administration to offer a reasonable, flexible timetable for bringing home our troops, is making us weaker. It is making us less safe, and it is making our enemies stronger. The perception of a massive, indefinite American troop presence in Iraq is feeding the very insurgency that we are trying to defeat. That is why I now call upon the majority and minority leaders to agree that they will allow the Senate to debate and vote upon an amendment calling for a flexible timetable for returning our troops home. This doesn't have to be exactly the resolution I introduced in June, or it doesn't have to include the December 31, 2006, target date for completion of the primary military mission that I proposed back in August.

There are plenty of Members deeply concerned about Iraq whose leadership has been and will continue to be crucial, people such as Senators Levin, Kerry, and Dodd. Senators Byrd and Kennedy have also been vocal about their concerns. There are plenty of Members on the other side, also, with whom I have spoken and shared some of my concerns about our Iraq policy. I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a reasonable amendment that will finally start the process of getting our Iraq policy and our broader national security strategy on track.

Obviously, I do not have to remind anyone here that the United States suffered its 2,000th casualty in Iraq this week, and there have been more since then. Every one of our servicemembers in Iraq and their families deserve clarity about the mission they are serving and the timeframe for that mission. And the American people and the Iraqi people, too, need to know that we have a plan to complete our military mission and draw down our troops in Iraq.

Mr. President, the Senate needs to do its job. When the Senate finally resumes consideration of the Defense authorization bill, and I hope that will be very soon, we need to finally address and put our Iraq policy right. The Senate will consider up to 24 amendments at that time. Clearly, this should be one of them. I hope my colleagues agree with me and that we can work together to ensure that we live up to our responsibilities.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to offer an amendment to fund the Automatic Defibrillation in Adam's Memory, the ADAM Act. But first I would like to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa and their staffs for the hard work that obviously went into drafting this bill in the face of tight budget restraints.

Mr. President, in 2001, I learned about Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star athlete in southeastern Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest and died before the paramedics were able to arrive.

After his death, his friend, David Ellis, joined forces with the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, to educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths, and to save lives. The ADAM Act called for the establishment of a national Project ADAM clearinghouse. Such a clearinghouse would provide schools with the ``how to'' and technical advice to set up public access defibrillation programs. This clearinghouse responds to a growing number of schools that have the desire to set up such a defibrillation program but often do not know where to start.

The ADAM Act was signed into law in 2003--and we are very pleased with that--but it has yet to be funded. The amendment Senator Collins and I offered would simply fund the ADAM Act clearinghouse with $800,000 for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. President, at this time, I would like to call up my amendment and ask that it be modified.

I understand that the amendment will be accepted, and I want to thank the managers in advance for that as well.

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

Mr. President, I will vote in favor of final passage of the Senate version of the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. This legislation is an improvement over the House-passed bill and over the President's request in many areas. However, it still vastly underfunds a number of crucial programs. I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their work to produce this bill under tight fiscal constraints. However, we can and should do better for the many Americans who depend on the programs that are funded by this important appropriations bill.

I am pleased that the Senate adopted two amendments I worked on. One was an amendment I cosponsored that the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, offered, to provide much-needed funding to improve access to dental health in rural and underserved areas, and the other was an amendment I offered to increase public access to automatic external defibrillators in schools. I have worked with my colleague from Maine, Ms. Collins, for a number of years to secure funding for these important programs, and I hope to see these provisions carry through to the conference report.

I regret that the Senate missed a number of opportunities to improve this bill, including by rejecting amendments that would have increased funding for a number of elementary and secondary education programs, including title I, after-school programs, and special education. Year after year, Congress and the President fail to provide the promised funding for these and other education programs as local school districts continue to struggle to make ends meet under shrinking State and local education budgets. The President's budget requests for each of the fiscal years since the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted have fallen far short of what was authorized by this law. And while Congress has improved upon these budget requests and provided funding for a number of the programs that the President proposed to cut, NCLB programs are still funded at far less than their authorized levels.

Yet despite our broken promises to these school districts, we still require them to comply with a variety of Federal mandates. And during this school year, the stakes have been raised even further because the 2005-2006 school year is the first under which schools are required to implement the NCLB mandate to test students in grades three through eight in reading and math. It is past time that we hold up our end of the equation and give States and school districts the resources they need to ensure that every child has the opportunity to succeed.

With regard to higher education, I was proud to support the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts that would have increased the Pell Grant maximum by $200 to $4,250 per year. This would have been a good down payment on the ultimate

goal of increasing the maximum to $9,000 by the 2010-2011 school year, as I proposed with Senator Collins earlier this year. While Senator Kennedy's amendment was not successful, I will continue to work toward this goal of increasing grant aid and reducing the burden of debt to keep the doors of higher education open to as many Americans as possible.

While funding for other higher education programs were not as generous as I would have hoped, I was encouraged that the Appropriations Committee rejected the harmful cuts proposed in the President's budget. The President had proposed eliminating or cutting important programs that prepare disadvantaged students for college, support their successful completion of college, and provide financial assistance to help them afford higher education, such as the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, LEAP, program; TRIO programs; the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, GEAR UP; the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education program; and Perkins loans. I consistently opposed these reductions during both the budget and appropriations processes, and I am pleased that this bill preserves funding for all of these programs.

Another reservation I have about this bill is its failure to adequately provide a much needed increase in funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP--an increase that would simply bring the funding level up to the fully authorized amount. Despite predictions that home energy costs this winter will increase between 30 and almost 70 percent, for the third time in a month, the Senate failed to help working families and seniors afford skyrocketing home energy costs when it defeated Senator Reed's efforts to increase LIHEAP funding. The lack of higher LIHEAP funding is greatly troubling and I will continue pursuing opportunities to help people in Wisconsin and across the country receive the assistance they need to stay safe and warm this winter.

While this bill is far from perfect, I will support it, and I very much hope that the final version of this bill will provide adequate funding for the many important programs contained in it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I had the opportunity to give three speeches on the floor so far about issues concerning the fight against terrorism globally and the relationship of the Iraq war to that struggle and that battle.

Today, I come to the floor to talk about why I think we need a timeframe for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I do not mean a rigid timetable, nor do I mean a timetable that is not connected to clear and achievable benchmarks. But what we do need is a public, flexible, realistic timetable that will tell people when and how we expect to finish the military mission in Iraq.

As my colleagues may know, I have suggested a target date of December 31, 2006, the end of next year, for the completion of our military mission. Today, I want to talk a little bit about why a flexible timetable for withdrawal will help make the U.S. stronger and our enemies weaker.

Some have argued that a timetable is designed to appeal to the American public, that it has no relationship to our security or to our achieving policy goals in Iraq. Actually, it is just the opposite. I proposed a timeframe because I think it has everything to do with improving our national security strategy.

Our fundamental national security goal must be to combat the global terrorist networks that attacked and continue to threaten the United States. An increasing number of military experts and members of the public have concluded that our military presence in Iraq is not consistent with that goal and that it is, in fact, undermining that goal. I think it has become increasingly clear that we have created a breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq and that the apparent indefinite presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops is often fueling, not dampening, the insurgency in that country.

Melvin Laird, a former Republican Congressman from my State of Wisconsin, who was the Defense Secretary under Richard Nixon, said:

We owe it to the rest of the people back home to let them

know there is an exit strategy. And more important, we owe it

to the Iraqi people. Our presence is what feeds the

insurgency. And our gradual withdrawal would feed the

confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to

the insurgents.

GEN George Casey, the commanding general of the allied forces in Iraq, made a similar point in testimony to Congress last month. He testified that:

. . . getting Iraqis into leading the counterinsurgency

effort as they are capable will allow us to gradually reduce

the visibility of coalition forces across Iraq and,

ultimately, as conditions warrant, to begin to reduce our

presence in Iraq, taking away an element that fuels the

insurgency; that is, the perception of occupation.

He went on to call reducing the visibility and presence of coalition forces a key element of our overall counterinsurgency strategy.

Melvin Laird and General Casey know that our presence has fed this insurgence, making it easy for the insurgents to convince new recruits that we are there to stay.

Mr. President, I know, you know--we all know--that is not the fault of our men and women in uniform who are serving courageously; it is the fault of the administration for sending them into battle without a clearly defined or well-thought-out mission.

In February, I asked one of the top allied commanders in Iraq when I was there in the Green Zone what would happen if we suggested to the world that there is a timeframe for achieving our military mission. This is what I asked him. His response to me, which of course was off the record, was that, ``nothing would take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents more'' than providing a clear public plan and timeframe for a remaining U.S. mission.

The President himself in June told the Nation that he did not support putting more troops into Iraq because, he said, ``sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever.''

Even the President has acknowledged the problem with feeding the insurgency if it appears our presence there is permanent, or ever expanding. I think that same logic applies to the President's refusal to issue a public timetable.

To the extent that we do not explain what our military goals in Iraq are and when we hope to achieve them, we are playing into the hands of the insurgents. The insurgents are motivated by our presence and they feed off conspiracy theories and suspicions regarding American intentions. And, of course, our brave service-members and their families deserve some clarity about how long they are likely to remain in Iraq.

The President is one of an ever-narrowing group of people who believe that a timetable works against our goals in Iraq. Military experts, people I talked to in Iraq, and the American people increasingly agree that the administration's refusal to even suggest a timetable for meeting our military goals in Iraq is feeding the insurgency.

The lack of a timetable doesn't just feed the insurgency, it also discourages Iraqi ownership of their own political process. By making it clear that the U.S. will not be there indefinitely, we will help the Iraqis move toward the real political independence they need and dispel some of the cynicism about American intentions that empowers some of the more extreme elements of Iraqi society.

Finally, a timetable is important because it enables us to devote more resources to the other national security issues that demand our attention. To fight the global terrorist networks that threaten the U.S., we need to focus energy and resources on countering emerging terrorist tactics, dealing with the threat of ``loose nukes,'' and repairing the damage to our Army, to name just a few urgent priorities. Drawing down U.S. troops in Iraq will allow us to focus on these priorities. It is time to make sure that our Iraq policy is advancing, not undermining, our national security goals.

The administration and its allies have offered various arguments as to why they can't or won't come up with a clear plan and timeline for military success in Iraq.

One argument has been that the U.S. pullouts from Somalia in the 1990s and Lebanon in the 1980s emboldened terrorists and others who oppose American interests. To pull out of Iraq without having put down the Iraqi insurgency once and for all would supposedly be another sign of American weakness.

But our decisions about national security shouldn't be made based on conjecture about the ``message'' that some might perceive. No one, including the Bush administration, can know how the insurgents in Iraq might feel about the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. We do know, however, that right now we are making the insurgency stronger with our indefinite presence in Iraq, and our failure to articulate a timetable for military withdrawal. We also know that our commitment of resources--money, troops, time--to Iraq is detracting from our ability to focus on our most pressing national security goals and stretching our military to the breaking point. Terrorists will not feel particularly emboldened about us putting our Iraq policy on track so that we can focus our attention on eliminating them. The President suggests that if he issues a timetable for how long he expects U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, our enemies will think that we are weak. But without a plan to finish our military mission, our enemies will know that we have fallen into a trap and we can't figure out how to get out. That is what they will know if we do not apply some common sense to this situation.

When I pressed Secretary Rice on the need for a timetable last week, she responded that ``we'd like our discussions of withdrawal and of bringing down the numbers of forces to be results-based rather than time-based.'' But of course a timetable should be results-based. As I have said over and over, any timetable needs to be flexible and needs to be tied to achievable benchmarks. The point is to have some idea of when

those benchmarks, those results, can be achieved. Without such a timetable, and without clear, realistic benchmarks. we cannot hold ourselves accountable for meeting our goals. Nor can we give our troops and the American people the clarity they deserve about their mission.

The Bush administration, with all these arguments, has succeeded in one thing: in intimidating people into not uttering the words ``timetable,'' or ``timeframe,'' or ``target date'' for finishing the military mission. But with the words of Republicans like Melvin Laird and military leaders like General Casey, more and more people understand that having a flexible timetable will strengthen our national security. This is not a timetable where the objective is troop withdrawal, the objective is to focus on our national security needs and the timetable is one step towards that goal. A timetable is not about domestic politics--it's about undercutting insurgency recruiting and unity, encouraging more Iraqi ownership and responsibility, and creating space for other important U.S. national security efforts.

I again emphasize that the timeframe I have proposed is a flexible one--not a drop-dead date, not a deadline, not a formula for ``cut and run.'' It is linked with a call for more clarity about what we want the U.S. military to achieve in Iraq.

Please note that I am only referring to a timeframe for the military mission in Iraq, not for our broader political and other missions in Iraq. We all understand that our engagement in Iraq will not end with the U.S. military mission. We will still have a great deal of tough diplomatic work to do in Iraq well after the bulk of U.S. troops leave, and probably some serious security cooperation as well.

We will continue to devote resources to Iraq, without a doubt. But as it stands today, we have focused on Iraq to the exclusion of critically important national security priorities. And we have done so at great cost to the outstanding men and women of the U.S. military, and to their families. When I speak to service men and women in Wisconsin and in Iraq, and when I speak to their families, their pride in their service is evident and it is well earned. But their frustration with this open-ended commitment, with the stop-loss orders and the multiple deployments, with the extensions and the uncertainties, is equally evident, and it is very painful. We can do better by them, by insisting on clarity, by insisting on accountability, and by assuring them that we have a plan with clear and achievable goals.

We must stop feeding the insurgency in Iraq, and focus on the fight against the terrorist networks that threaten the security of the American people. A timetable can make us stronger, and our enemies weaker. That is the strategy we must pursue, and I look forward to working with colleagues here in the Senate to move such a proposal forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to express my concern about avian influenza and America's preparedness for a global pandemic. While I do not want to add to people's fears about this issue, reports of the lethality of the H5N1 strain must be taken seriously and we need to make sure that we are taking appropriate measures to prepare for a possible pandemic.

As we all well know, migratory birds are steadily carrying the avian flu virus from throughout Southeast Asia and Siberia to Romania, Turkey, and now Greece. International health officials predicted that this spread could happen, and it should be no surprise that this disease is taking this course. In the 20th century alone, three influenza pandemics swept throughout the world, most notably the 1918 flu pandemic, which took 500,000 lives. Our knowledge of disease and hygiene has improved dramatically since then, and our ability to ready ourselves has subsequently advanced, but our risk for a pandemic remains a danger.

Scientists and public health officials throughout the world have warned that a flu pandemic will take place, have alerted governments to the possibility of pandemic through the avian flu, and have watched as little has been done to prepare for the occurrence. Despite the warnings of the inevitability of pandemic, research into influenza vaccine and therapy has been continually underfunded, as have our programs that would provide emergency health care relief in a time of crisis. Hurricane Katrina illustrated our lack of preparedness for a true disaster, and the Government's failure to quickly bring relief to our friends along the gulf coast should send a resounding message that we must better prepare for an

emergency in the future. That emergency could well be the avian flu pandemic. Let us not be caught unaware. While there is no guarantee that this will occur this winter, next winter, or even the year after that, scientists tell us that it is only a matter of time, and we should use that time to build our stockpiles of vaccines and medicines, and to support global initiatives to help prevent the spread of the disease through containment strategies and alerts.

Although the avian flu does not yet transmit from human to human, this type of virus is capable of rapidly mutating and becoming highly infectious among people. With the seasonal flu season approaching, the risk of a human strain emerging increases, as the opportunity for the virus to drift among species and mutate is augmented. If a pandemic ensued, the threat would obviously not be distributed evenly across the population. The young and elderly would be at most risk, as would immunocompromised people and people suffering from malnutrition and inadequate basic health services. We know this, we are aware of the problems, and we must take action to ensure the health and safety of the most vulnerable. Guaranteeing safety means taking responsibility for all of our communities' responses and plans.

I am pleased that I was able to join many of my colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush on October 4, 2005, that urged the administration to release a finalized Pandemic Influenza Response and Preparedness Plan, which the World Health Organization has deemed essential to planning a strategy in the case of a global pandemic. I am eagerly waiting for this plan to be released, as I believe it is of extreme importance to the American people. I am also pleased that the Senate approved a measure to add $3.9 billion to the Defense Department's budget for the purchase of vaccines and medicines to treat avian flu, and I hope to see the House agree to this in conference. This was an important measure to help prepare Americans, particularly those most vulnerable, against the ravages of a fatal disease.

While we do not know when or where this pandemic may develop, we must work to prepare now.

Mr. President, last month people from across the country converged on Washington to send a clear message to Congress in opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Sadly, yesterday's action by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee flies in the face of that grassroots movement. And on top of this, the committee failed to accept commonsense amendments that would have required that drilling in the Arctic follow the same rules as drilling in all other wildlife refuges, insisted that oil taken from the refuge stay in the hands of Americans, and guaranteed what Senators have been told all along--that 50 percent of the revenues from leases would go to the Federal Treasury, despite public suggestions by Members of the Alaska delegation that the State would sue to get 90 percent of all revenues.

There is no doubt that as a nation, we face tough questions about our energy policy. Sacrificing one of America's greatest natural treasures, however, to access a supply of oil that may not last more than a year, wouldn't be available for many years to come, and would decrease gas prices by only a penny at its highest production, is simply not the answer. A responsible, well-thought-out national energy policy that moves us away from our dependence on a finite resource such as oil is the answer, and I regret that we don't have such a policy. To support our energy needs, care for our citizens, encourage a vibrant economy, and meet our stewardship responsibilities to future generations, we must take a variety of steps, including investing in American ingenuity, advancing our commitment to conservation, and increasing our use of renewable sources of fuel.

As we now move from the committee's reconciliation recommendation to floor debate of the larger budget reconciliation package, I will work to make sure that we do not discard the legacy of protecting the Arctic Refuge that dates back to President Eisenhower in 1960.

Mr. President, I rise to lend my strong support to the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor.

It is far past time that we increase the Federal minimum wage. The last time Congress voted to increase the minimum wage was 9 years ago in 1996, and the last portion of this increase went into effect 8 years ago, in 1997. Since that time, consumers have faced increased prices for everything from food to clothing to housing to childcare. And in recent months, gas prices have skyrocketed, and home heating costs are expected to follow suit this winter.

And while prices have increased, the purchasing power of the current Federal minimum wage of $5.15 has decreased by nearly 20 percent. A minimum wage employee working 40 hours per week can expect to earn $10,712 per year--this is $4,500 below the poverty line for a family of three.

Many minimum wage earners are struggling to provide for the basic needs of themselves and their families. They cannot make ends meet on $10,712 per year. These are hard-working Americans who deserve a fair shake and who deserve a raise. Many work more than one job, sacrificing time with their children just to scrape by. Without an increase, these workers will continue to work long hours to support their families with little hope of saving for the future when they are barely able to afford the basic necessities of the present.

According to a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, ``[t]he minimum wage now equals only 32 percent of the average wage for private sector, non- supervisory workers. This is the lowest share since 1949.'' In other words, the average minimum wage worker makes less than one-third of the average nonsupervisory private sector worker.

I am concerned about the argument made by some who oppose this amendment that most minimum wage workers are entry-level workers in first jobs who will advance their way out of these jobs and move on to better paying jobs. While that is certainly true for some workers, about two-thirds of those who would benefit from this increase are adults, and one-third of them are the sole breadwinners for their families.

I was proud to vote for the 1996-1997 increase that brought the minimum wage to its current $5.15, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, that would increase the minimum wage to $7.25. The Economic Policy Institute notes that such an increase would directly help more than 7.3 million American workers. This increase will also help the children and other dependents of these workers potentially more than 15 million people.

Congress's inaction on this issue over the past several years has led to a growing grass-roots movement to increase the minimum wage at the state level. A number of States have enacted increases over the past few years, including Wisconsin. On June 1, 2005, the minimum wage for most workers in my State was increased to $5.70 per hour. The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development estimated that this increase would help between 100,000-150,000 workers in my State. While this increase represents a step forward for Wisconsin workers, more work still needs to be done to boost the purchasing power of these and other workers around our country.

The amendment that we are considering today would increase the minimum wage by $1.10 to $6.25 over the next 18 months. While this modest increase will not go as far as I and many others in this body would in supporting the hard-working Americans who badly need a raise, it is a long-overdue step in the right direction.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, would also provide a $1.10 per hour increase in the Federal minimum wage. However, this amendment would also undermine low-income workers' struggle to break the cycle of poverty by allowing employers to deny these workers badly needed overtime pay through a so-called flex time scheme. This amendment, which is a total of 87 pages, also includes a number of other incentives for businesses that are intended to dampen the opposition of business groups to even this modest $1.10 increase in the Federal minimum wage. However, what these proposals would really do is continue the process of dismantling the 40-hour work week that was initiated with the implementation of the administration's ill-conceived overtime rule changes last year.

By the Senator from Wyoming's, Mr. Enzi, own admission, the committee which he chairs, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, has not even considered many of these provisions. These provisions should not be rolled into a proposal to increase the minimum wage. The need to increase the Federal minimum wage stands on its own merit. And while I am certainly willing to consider a package of reforms for business, this is not the way to do it. Passage of such antiworker proposals should not be a condition of providing a much- needed wage increase for the lowest income Americans.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Enzi amendment and to support American workers by voting for the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, in introducing legislation that would bring a small measure of relief to the families of our men and women in uniform as they seek to maintain a sense of normalcy here at home while their loved ones are deployed in service to our country. Our ongoing large-scale deployments in Iraq continue to demand so much from our men and women in uniform and their families. Passing this measure is the least we can do.

As part of the pre-deployment process, military personnel with dependent children or other dependent family members, such as elderly parents who require care, designate a caregiver for their dependents. This person will act in the deployed personnel's place to provide care for these family members during the period of deployment. The caregiver could be a spouse, parent, sibling, or other responsible adult who is capable of caring for, and willing to care for, the dependents in question.

The bill that we are 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 first program 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.

This bill would also require the Secretary of Labor to establish a voluntary program under which private sector companies would create similar programs for their employees and to solicit participation from private sector companies. I commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty, and I hope that companies in Wisconsin and around the country will participate in this voluntary program.

In addition, our bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with an evaluation of both the OPM program and the voluntary Department of Labor program. It is my hope that this evaluation will demonstrate the utility of such a leave program for designated caregivers and that these pilot programs could then be expanded to the designated caregivers of additional deployed military personnel.

This legislation builds on a measure that I introduced earlier this year, S. 798, the Military Families Leave Act. This bill would provide a similar benefit to military families by allowing eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care. I also introduced this bill during the 108th Congress.

Let me be clear, that the legislation we are introducing today does not amend the FMLA in any way. In fact, FMLA benefits are specifically exempted from the types of leave that can be used by designated caregivers for purposes directly related to or resulting from their caregiver responsibilities. While I believe that the FMLA could serve as the basis for providing additional leave opportunities for designated caregivers, opposition in some quarters to the original FMLA makes this a difficult proposition. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this landmark law, and I believe that the FMLA continues to provide much-needed assistance to millions of workers around the country as they seek to care for their own serious health condition or that of a family member or as they welcome the birth or adoption of a child. I will continue to support this law and efforts to ensure that the vital benefits that it provides are not eroded.

I thank the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for his work on this important measure, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, in introducing legislation that would bring a small measure of relief to the families of our men and women in uniform as they seek to maintain a sense of normalcy here at home while their loved ones are deployed in service to our country. Our ongoing large-scale deployments in Iraq continue to demand so much from our men and women in uniform and their families. Passing this measure is the least we can do.

As part of the pre-deployment process, military personnel with dependent children or other dependent family members, such as elderly parents who require care, designate a caregiver for their dependents. This person will act in the deployed personnel's place to provide care for these family members during the period of deployment. The caregiver could be a spouse, parent, sibling, or other responsible adult who is capable of caring for, and willing to care for, the dependents in question.

The bill that we are 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 first program 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.

This bill would also require the Secretary of Labor to establish a voluntary program under which private sector companies would create similar programs for their employees and to solicit participation from private sector companies. I commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty, and I hope that companies in Wisconsin and around the country will participate in this voluntary program.

In addition, our bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with an evaluation of both the OPM program and the voluntary Department of Labor program. It is my hope that this evaluation will demonstrate the utility of such a leave program for designated caregivers and that these pilot programs could then be expanded to the designated caregivers of additional deployed military personnel.

This legislation builds on a measure that I introduced earlier this year, S. 798, the Military Families Leave Act. This bill would provide a similar benefit to military families by allowing eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care. I also introduced this bill during the 108th Congress.

Let me be clear, that the legislation we are introducing today does not amend the FMLA in any way. In fact, FMLA benefits are specifically exempted from the types of leave that can be used by designated caregivers for purposes directly related to or resulting from their caregiver responsibilities. While I believe that the FMLA could serve as the basis for providing additional leave opportunities for designated caregivers, opposition in some quarters to the original FMLA makes this a difficult proposition. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this landmark law, and I believe that the FMLA continues to provide much-needed assistance to millions of workers around the country as they seek to care for their own serious health condition or that of a family member or as they welcome the birth or adoption of a child. I will continue to support this law and efforts to ensure that the vital benefits that it provides are not eroded.

I thank the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for his work on this important measure, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has offered. It is straightforward. It would eliminate the roughly $3,100 pay raise for Members of Congress that is currently scheduled to go into effect next January. That increase would follow on a $4,000 pay raise this year, a $3,400 pay raise in 2004, a $4,700 pay raise in 2003, a $4,900 pay raise in 2002, a $3,800 pay raise in 2001, and a $4,600 pay raise in 2000.

There are a number of arguments against this scheduled pay raise. The war in Iraq continues to drain our Treasury at a rate of over $1 billion every week. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we face a massively expensive relief effort. And on top of those enormous fiscal challenges, we are up to our necks in deficit spending. We are piling up billions more in debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. At such a time, it would seem hard to justify a scheduled pay raise for Members of Congress. Nonetheless, I recognize that some do justify it. In the end, though, the most important reason I joined Senator Kyl in offering this amendment is that doing so is the only way to put this

body on record with respect to our pay raise. And we should go on record on this issue.

Under current law, many Americans do not realize that under current law Members of Congress can get an automatic pay raise every year without lifting a finger, unless we act to stop it. It is automatic. There is no requirement for a vote. All that is required is that we show up to cash the check. As I have noted before in discussing this matter, it is a pretty unusual thing to have the power to raise your own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do not have that power. That this power is so unusual is a good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include a vote on the record. That is why this process of automatic, stealth pay raises without accountability is so questionable. It is offensive. It is wrong. I believe it also may be unconstitutional.

The 27th amendment to the Constitution states:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the

senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an

election of representatives shall have intervened.

That is what it says in the 27th amendment to the Constitution. I have actually introduced legislation to end this automatic pay raise system, and I hope this body will pass it at some point.

But as the Senator from Arizona has made very clear, this amendment does not go that far. It simply stops the $3,100 pay raise that is scheduled for next January. I fully accept that many--even a majority-- of my colleagues may want a pay raise. But those who want a pay raise should support an open and public vote on the increase. Certainly having a vote on the record for a pay hike is better than a stealth pay raise that takes place with no action. Standing up and making the case before the voters is far better than quietly letting the pay raise take effect.

I urge my colleagues to stop this backdoor pay raise and then take the next step by enacting legislation to end this practice once and for all.

I thank my colleague from Arizona for joining us in this cause that I have sought to proceed with almost every year in the hopes that Congress and the Senate in particular will vote on the automatic pay raise.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I commend the Liberian people on their recent Presidential and parliamentary elections. News reports of people camping outside polling areas to vote, strong voter turnout, and a free and fair democratic process in Liberia are inspiring. Following a 14- year-long civil war and the regime of former Liberian leader Charles Taylor, who fled in exile in August 2003, the war-tired people of Liberia deserve our support as they work to bring about a legitimate, representative government in that country.

However, Liberia's elections are not the silver bullet for stability. There remains much work to be done to build long-term stability in this country, and the U.S. has a meaningful role to play. We must remain engaged in Liberia to help rebuild and strengthen institutions. The legitimacy of government is contingent upon the public's confidence, and lasting stability depends on such steps as rooting out corruption and providing transparency in government. The Liberian people deserve our unflagging support in those endeavors. Too much is at stake to turn our back and allow Liberia to regress into a state that houses a corrupt and abusive government and further destabilizes West Africa.

In looking forward, Liberians must also reconcile with the past. Years of horrible violence and conflict and the drastic decline of humanitarian conditions in the country under the regime of Charles Taylor need resolution. We also know now that Charles Taylor's

desire for power and wealth extended beyond the borders of Liberia. I firmly believe that Charles Taylor is a war criminal, and I maintain that he should stand trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The U.S. and the international community have a responsibility to ensure that the circle of violence and impunity in Liberia does not continue in its nascent government. And we must continue to help the Liberian people combat corruption, because no new leadership can bring lasting change if that fundamental problem is not addressed.

Mr. President, although I support passage of this year's Department of Defense appropriations bill, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has not been allowed a full debate on the Defense authorization bill. It is unconscionable that the Defense authorization bill that is so critical to our men and women in uniform has been allowed to languish for over 5 months. The appropriations bill includes funds for many important items I strongly support, including vital equipment for those in uniform facing daily dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, vital defense policies are contained in the authorization bill, including policies with a direct impact on military families, such as pay and benefits. The Senate's strong bipartisan efforts to make TRICARE available for the Guard Reserve are also a part of the Defense authorization bill. I therefore urge the majority leader to bring the Defense authorization bill back to the floor so that the Senate can fulfill its obligation to our troops and to the American people.

I am also frustrated that the administration continues to rely on emergency supplemental funding for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to delay even those funding requests. The administration did not even request the $50 billion ``bridge fund'' included in this bill by the Appropriations Committee even though the Pentagon will soon run out of money for the war effort. This week, Senator Byrd eloquently explained, once again, why the administration should include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular budget. Congress cannot budget responsibly or perform its oversight duties adequately if we continue to rely on supplemental spending bills, which essentially put the costs of war on our national tab. The Senate has insisted on three separate occasions that the administration include war costs in its budget submissions and the administration has ignored the Senate three times. I was proud to cosponsor Senator Byrd's amendment demanding accountability for the fourth time and was gratified that the Senate adopted it.

I am proud that the Senate sent such a strong message to the administration about the treatment of detainees. The lack of a clear policy regarding the treatment of detainees has been confusing and counterproductive. It has left our men and women in uniform in the lurch with no clear direction about what is and is not permissible. This failure on the part of the administration has sullied our reputation as a nation, and hurt our efforts to promote democracy and human rights in the Arab and Muslim world. I was proud to vote for Senator McCain's amendment on interrogation policy because it should help to bring back some accountability to the process and restore our great Nation's reputation as the world's leading advocate for human rights.

I am also pleased that the bill coins a modified version of Senator Graham's amendment, requiring that the administration report to Congress about the procedures used by the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay to determine whether individuals held there are enemy combatants. The modified amendment also makes a very important clarification, ensuring that the tribunals may not consider statements obtained with undue coercion.

This bill also contains a provision I authored establishing the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, CLRC, pilot project. It became abundantly clear after the attacks of September 11, 2001, that the U.S. Government had a dearth of critical language skills. The 9/11 Commission report documented the disastrous consequences of this deficiency that, unfortunately, we still have not made enough progress in addressing 4 years after the 9/11 tragedy.

CLRC is designed to address the Government's critical language shortfall by creating a pool of people with advanced language skills that the Federal Government could call on to assist when needed. The National Security Education Program completed a feasibility study of CLRC and concluded that the concept was sound and ``an important step in addressing both short- and long-term shortfalls related to language assets in the national security community.'' It also recommended that a 3-year pilot project be conducted to work out any potential problems. My amendment establishes this pilot project. I want to thank the managers of the bill for working with me to include this important measure and thank Senator Coleman for cosponsoring my amendment.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for continuing to work with me in assisting the families of injured service members. I was pleased that Congress included my amendment on travel benefits for the family of injured service members in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005, P.L. 109-13. My amendment corrected a flaw in the law that unintentionally restricted the number of families of injured service members that qualify for travel assistance. Too many families were being denied help in visiting their injured loved ones because the Army had not officially listed them as ``seriously injured,'' even though these men and women have been evacuated out of the combat zone to the United State for treatment. The change in the law now ensures that families of injured service members evacuated to a U.S. hospital get at least one trip paid for so the families can quickly reunite and begin recovering from the trauma they have experienced.

The family travel provision in P.L. 109-13 was sunset at the end of the 2005 fiscal year, H.J. Res. 68 continues to make this travel provision available until November 18 of this year. I was concerned that Congress may not pass the necessary legislation to make this travel benefit permanent before November 18. However, the distinguished Chairman assured me that he would continue working to extend this benefit in fiscal year 2006 until it becomes permanent through the Defense authorization process.

There are provisions in this bill with which I disagree, and the Senate rejected a number of amendments that

would have made this bill better. We continue to waste billions on Cold-War-era weapons systems designed to counter the Soviet Union while not fully funding the needs of the military personnel fighting our current wars. However, on balance, this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families, and that is why I support it.