Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota has described the spirit of a people confronted with great tragedy. It was horrible to be there by that bridge and see those cars, some in the water, others that had burst on fire--a tractor trailer--to see a school bus on the precipice. I think it had dropped 20 feet. Had it gone a little further to the side, it would gone over the edge. Had it gone a little further forward, it would have been caught between crashing portions of steel and concrete. Had it gone another distance, it would have been in the water. Yet every one of those 60 kids walked away. We saw tragedy. There are those who have lost their lives and suffered great pain, but we also saw miracles. We saw the reaction of a community that came together at every level--the first responders, the citizens who came together to jump in the water to try and help folks who were in situations that were hard to understand. In addition to that, when Senator Klobuchar and I got there early in the morning, we sat in on a briefing with the Governor and the mayor and the first responders, the county commissioners, city council members--some Democrats, some Republicans. It didn't matter. I sat there as a former mayor remembering what it was like on 9/11, remembering how unprepared we were on 9/11. And after 9/11, as a city, we tried to take stock and recognize that our first responders weren't tied into what was going on at hospitals, and various police and fire from different communities could not communicate. What we did is we went about the process of training and training and training, preparing and preparing and preparing, and it came together. I watched in the city of Minneapolis, and as a former mayor I took pride in the way the people responded. I think the Nation saw it, I think the world saw it, and it made me proud to represent Minnesota. I say that because I saw the same spirit in the Senate tonight. The people in Minneapolis have some great needs. My colleague in the House, Congressman Oberstar, put forth a plan that would provide authorization to rebuild the bridge. There was also provided some extra money on the table to deal with some very immediate needs. I was there when the Secretary of Transportation made the pledge that ``we are going to be there to help,'' and we had some challenges then in moving that forward. There were some technical issues. But what I found along the way was my colleagues on both sides of the aisle simply said, how can we help? How can we get this done? The chairman of the Budget Committee a little while ago discovered there was one minor technical issue. He said, we are going to take care of this. I got a call today from the director of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Administrator. I got a call yesterday from the head of the SBA. At the scene yesterday we had the head of the Transportation Safety Board. We had the Secretary of Transportation, the highway administrator. They were all there. Everyone had come together. And on the floor of the Senate I saw that tonight, that spirit, and I simply say thank you to my colleagues. On behalf of the people of Minnesota and the people of Minneapolis, I say thank you for the support you have shown and the spirit in which you have come together. At times, there is so much rancor in our Nation today--this partisan divide. It is so uplifting to be in this Chamber to see my colleagues on both sides of the aisle come together, and so I say thank you. Let me end by asking that we not forget there has been a great tragedy; that lives have been lost. Let us keep the families of those who have lost loved ones in our prayers. Let us make sure we continue in the effort to ensure that the resources are there to rebuild, and let us do it quickly. Let us do those things to expedite the process. This is a major thoroughfare, a major piece of the transportation system in the State of Minnesota. We need to get the money back to Minnesota and get the people on the ground who can get the work done. We can do it, and we can do it quickly. We will rebuild this bridge, we will rebuild quickly, we will find out what caused this terrible, terrible tragedy, and we will keep those who have suffered loss in our prayers. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues Senators Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu to introduce the All Students Can Achieve Act of 2007, ASCA, legislation aimed at improving the current No Child Left Behind law. As a parent and a legislator, improving our Nation's education system has been a top priority for me. Several years ago, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to bring accountability to our Nation's learning system. While this bill was a step in the right direction, Minnesota's educators have voiced their concerns over an overly restrictive system that still leaves students behind. The All Students Can Achieve Act will change that by giving flexibility to each State and school without diminishing school accountability. One of the best features of our legislation is that it will allow States to measure individual student growth over time instead of relying on, and teaching for, one test administered on one day. Measuring a student's growth over time benefits both students and teachers because it recognizes that students have different starting points and acknowledges their individual progress. This approach will free teachers from the burden of teaching for one high-stakes test, while still giving parents the assurances they need that their children are learning in a high quality atmosphere. Minnesota has been trying for some time to move to this ``growth model'' of evaluation and our bill provides the funding to develop and implement the data systems our State would need to move to such a model. Our bill also addresses something I have been particularly focused on--ensuring that the next generation has the math, science and foreign language skills needed to be competitive in an increasingly globalized economy. As countries like China or India develop increasingly skilled workforces, we must ensure that American students do not fall behind in these critical and highly relevant fields. Our legislation adds a science assessment to the accountability system and gives States the option to bring in qualified science, math, and foreign language practitioners to assist teachers and students. Another concern I hear in Minnesota is that a school can be, in effect, penalized because a group of new immigrants does not test as well as long-time students. The All Students Can Achieve Act will replace the current all-or-nothing approach with a system that makes a distinction between schools that need comprehensive interventions, versus those that need more focused help. In other words, while current law groups all low performing schools together regardless of how many students miss adequate yearly progress, our legislation offers a more targeted approach, sending additional resources toward schools with pervasive problems, while allowing schools that just have one or more low performing subgroups to focus on closing the achievement gap with that particular group. A final aspect of our legislation is that it would change the way teachers are evaluated. Currently under No Child Left Behind, good teachers have to jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops to demonstrate on paper that they are ``qualified'' experts in the subjects they teach. I understand this has been a serious burden particularly in rural communities, where very good teachers provide instruction in more than one subject. I also know as a parent, that a teacher's resume may or may not reflect their actual abilities in the classroom. That is why our legislation provides States with new flexibility in the ways they rate and reward excellent teachers. At its core, No Child Left Behind is about closing the achievement gap. We still have a long way to go, recent data shows that still only 13 percent of African American and 19 percent of Hispanic 4th graders scored at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics test, compared to 47 percent of their white peers. By measuring teacher effectiveness, school quality, and student learning, our legislation will help reduce this unacceptable disparity in America today. Our bipartisan legislation is based on recommendations from a panel of experts, and has been endorsed by some leading educators. However, we know it is just the beginning of a conversation about how and where to add flexibility to the No Child Left Behind law. As we move forward, I welcome the advice of teachers, parents, and administrators on how best to help all students achieve.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues Senators Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu to introduce the All Students Can Achieve Act of 2007, ASCA, legislation aimed at improving the current No Child Left Behind law. As a parent and a legislator, improving our Nation's education system has been a top priority for me. Several years ago, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to bring accountability to our Nation's learning system. While this bill was a step in the right direction, Minnesota's educators have voiced their concerns over an overly restrictive system that still leaves students behind. The All Students Can Achieve Act will change that by giving flexibility to each State and school without diminishing school accountability. One of the best features of our legislation is that it will allow States to measure individual student growth over time instead of relying on, and teaching for, one test administered on one day. Measuring a student's growth over time benefits both students and teachers because it recognizes that students have different starting points and acknowledges their individual progress. This approach will free teachers from the burden of teaching for one high-stakes test, while still giving parents the assurances they need that their children are learning in a high quality atmosphere. Minnesota has been trying for some time to move to this ``growth model'' of evaluation and our bill provides the funding to develop and implement the data systems our State would need to move to such a model. Our bill also addresses something I have been particularly focused on--ensuring that the next generation has the math, science and foreign language skills needed to be competitive in an increasingly globalized economy. As countries like China or India develop increasingly skilled workforces, we must ensure that American students do not fall behind in these critical and highly relevant fields. Our legislation adds a science assessment to the accountability system and gives States the option to bring in qualified science, math, and foreign language practitioners to assist teachers and students. Another concern I hear in Minnesota is that a school can be, in effect, penalized because a group of new immigrants does not test as well as long-time students. The All Students Can Achieve Act will replace the current all-or-nothing approach with a system that makes a distinction between schools that need comprehensive interventions, versus those that need more focused help. In other words, while current law groups all low performing schools together regardless of how many students miss adequate yearly progress, our legislation offers a more targeted approach, sending additional resources toward schools with pervasive problems, while allowing schools that just have one or more low performing subgroups to focus on closing the achievement gap with that particular group. A final aspect of our legislation is that it would change the way teachers are evaluated. Currently under No Child Left Behind, good teachers have to jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops to demonstrate on paper that they are ``qualified'' experts in the subjects they teach. I understand this has been a serious burden particularly in rural communities, where very good teachers provide instruction in more than one subject. I also know as a parent, that a teacher's resume may or may not reflect their actual abilities in the classroom. That is why our legislation provides States with new flexibility in the ways they rate and reward excellent teachers. At its core, No Child Left Behind is about closing the achievement gap. We still have a long way to go, recent data shows that still only 13 percent of African American and 19 percent of Hispanic 4th graders scored at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics test, compared to 47 percent of their white peers. By measuring teacher effectiveness, school quality, and student learning, our legislation will help reduce this unacceptable disparity in America today. Our bipartisan legislation is based on recommendations from a panel of experts, and has been endorsed by some leading educators. However, we know it is just the beginning of a conversation about how and where to add flexibility to the No Child Left Behind law. As we move forward, I welcome the advice of teachers, parents, and administrators on how best to help all students achieve.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, and I wish to thank our colleagues in the Senate for their thoughts and prayers for the victims in the almost unconscionable tragedy that struck our State yesterday. We just returned from the scene of an unprecedented disaster in our State's history. As my colleagues have watched on the news over the last 24 hours, one of the busiest bridges in Minnesota--the I-35W bridge near the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis--collapsed into the Mississippi River yesterday evening. The Mississippi is not just a river in Minnesota; it is our identity. Right near where the bridge went down, in 1680, Father Louis Hennepin, the first European in the region, first spotted the Falls of St. Anthony. A few years earlier, he ``discovered'' Niagara Falls as well. As the head of navigation of one of the world's great rivers, the Falls of St. Anthony became the focal point for Minnesota's lumber, textile, and flour-milling businesses that put us on the map. Many Minnesotans have visited the spot far upstream in northwestern Minnesota, where the ``Mighty Mississippi'' is a little stream, flowing out of Lake Itasca, that you can walk across. It is why we call ourselves the Headwaters State and pride ourselves of being a place of invention and innovation. So when the bridge came down 24 hours ago, part of Minnesota's soul fell with it as well. Having visited the site firsthand today, there are three things I would like to join Senator Klobuchar in asking of our colleagues, our fellow Minnesotans, and all Americans this afternoon. First, and most importantly, please keep the victims of this tragedy and their families in your thoughts and prayers. The courage of the first responders and other citizens who joined together last night in the noblest of rescue efforts will receive our unending respect. Unfortunately, our mission is no longer rescue but recovery. The days ahead will be incredibly difficult for the families of the victims of those who we know have already left us and the many more who remain missing. For comfort in this time of unspeakable tragedy, we implore each and every one of you to honor their loss by keeping them near to your heart and in your prayers. Secondly, let us acknowledge the skill, coordination, and courage of those responding to the scene of this horrific event. I was the mayor of St. Paul, Minneapolis's twin city and proud neighbor, when we experienced the tragedy that will define our era--the attacks of 9/11. I remember the challenges we had with communication, with logistics, and with overall preparedness. Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the State of Minnesota learned the lessons of preparation that day and set out to ensure that if any major emergency should happen again, we would be ready. Mr. President, you hope that day never comes, but yesterday it came for the ``Mill City.'' Our Governor, Mayor Rybak, Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek's office, other local first responders--police and fire--and hundreds of Twin City residents responded in a manner which those of us who witnessed will carry with us forever. Mr. President, Senator Klobuchar and I saw the living definition of heroism and leadership today. We saw and heard stories of bystanders linking arms to pull victims from submerged automobiles, rescue divers braving the dangerous current of the Mississippi to reach vehicles beneath shredded concrete and jagged steel, and the faces of moms and dads reunited with their children after their miraculous escape from a trapped schoolbus. These images will reverberate across our State for years to come, and we owe all those who contributed to those stories of survival our eternal gratitude. Finally, as we move forward in the coming days and weeks, let us commit ourselves to rebuilding this critical artery in our heartland and to protect against another tragedy such as this from ever occurring in our great Nation. This process will take time, energy, and dedication. Next, it is absolutely critical we begin a comprehensive evaluation of our Nation's infrastructure immediately. The one thought many of my colleagues have conveyed to me over the last 24 hours is the fear this could have happened to any bridge in their home State or hometown. We need to make sure it never will. We also need to rebuild. Our Federal Highway Administration operates a program to assist in this type of disaster, providing emergency relief for Federal highways in the wake of tragedy. Our Governor made a request today to the Secretary of Transportation. Senator Klobuchar and I will join the entire Minnesota delegation in working with the Department of Transportation to transfer this funding as quickly as possible. My colleague will talk a little bit about some of the details of what we are asking. We need, in sum, to make the funding as expeditious as possible. We have some legislative hurdles we believe we can correct. Senator Klobuchar and I have introduced a bill to waive the cap on emergency highway funds that can be transferred in such a scenario and to allow those funds to be used to help transit routes and facilities in the meantime, as an interim measure. We do not have much time to rebuild in Minnesota. The construction window is extremely small because of our difficult winters. We need to pass this waiver before we recess, hopefully, tomorrow. As Minnesota has come to the aid of other States in their time of disaster, we are going to need a lot of help in our home State. I am happy to hear from around this Capitol and throughout the administration that help will be coming very soon. We must wrap our arms around those who have lost and grieve. There will be the temptation to turn pain and agony and suffering into anger and blame. Unfortunately, blame will come--responsibility for this tragedy may lie in many places--but I ask all of us today, let prayers and support be the order of the day. Our obligation and commitment to the victims of the horror of yesterday's tragedy must be to recognize that we can no longer put off our commitment and obligation to our Nation's infrastructure. I am committed to that cause on behalf of Minnesota and reach out to my colleagues to ask you to join with me in making that commitment to all of America. At one of the darkest moments of the American Revolution, George Washington wrote these words in a letter: Perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages. The people of Minnesota are writing a new chapter in that American story in the aftermath of one of the worst disasters my State has ever seen. I am honored to be a Minnesotan today, and I look forward to what I trust we will accomplish together tomorrow. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I was also in Homeland Security. We were advised by the chair that we would be able to make the vote. Obviously, we weren't. I would like to be recorded as voting no.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2334.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, this bill is about educating young people. Let them have unfettered access to information. This bill would prohibit the Government from monitoring ideas on our public airwaves and penalizing broadcasters who don't meet the Government's definition of fair and balanced. There is a reason why our first amendment is freedom of speech because all freedoms are at risk when Government monitors and controls the broadcast of ideas. Since the end of the fairness doctrine in 1987, talk radio has flourished because of consumer-driven market demand, not because of Government command, not because of Government control. That is why I am offering this amendment which will protect America's constitutionally granted right to free speech. It will prohibit the FCC from reinstituting the fairness doctrine. At the end of the day, there is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. This issue is not which broadcaster is fair and which is not. The issue is who decides. I believe fairness is what the American public decides is fair, not some Washington politician or bureaucrat. Americans love a fair fight, but there is nothing fair if the intent is to silence debate because a politician disagrees with it. I ask for my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my amendment, the protection of the innocent child, will prohibit any level of government--Federal, military, and State governments--from carrying out a death sentence on a pregnant woman. In existing law, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 already prohibits Federal executions of a woman while pregnant. However, this law does not apply to the military or States. In fact, most executions are carried out by States. Additionally, the existing law does not recognize the principle of the unborn child is innocent and, therefore, must be shielded from wrongful execution. My amendment does not reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of capital punishment. This amendment is grounded in the undeniable fact that a human being is being carried by the pregnant woman and cannot possibly be guilty of a crime and, therefore, should not be subject to the death penalty itself. Women do become pregnant in prison, even at maximum security facilities, from sad and unfortunate situations involving rape or having relations with a guard. Congress should prevent the government at any level from taking the life of an innocent human being by prohibiting within all U.S. jurisdictions any death sentence from being carried out when a woman convicted of a capital crime is pregnant.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am speaking on an amendment that I will call up later. It is amendment No. 2334. It is the Coleman-DeMint- Thune-Inhofe amendment that would prohibit the FCC from reinstating the so-called fairness doctrine. The amendment says: The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ``Fairness Doctrine''. For those students following debate on the education reconciliation bill, they may well wonder what the fairness doctrine controversy is all about. After all, this bill is about the podcasting, blogging, U-Tubing, channel-surfing generation that knows nothing but choice and vigorous freedom of expression. These students have grown up in today' s info- tech world of rich and diverse media sources, in which they, just like the rest of us, can get the information they want, how they want, and when they want it--free of any government content restriction. I want to keep it that way. It hasn't always been like this. It was only 20 years ago that we did away with the fairness doctrine. On its surface, the fairness doctrine sounds harmless enough, but at its core, the fairness doctrine would threaten our constitutional right to free speech and fundamentally undermine the workings of our democracy. The Government has no place monitoring ideas on our public airwaves and penalizing broadcasters who don't meet the Government's definition of fair and balanced. There is a reason why our first amendment is freedom of speech; Because all freedoms are at risk when Government monitors and controls the broadcast of ideas. That is why I will be offering this amendment which will protect American's constitutionally granted right to free speech. After all, what sort of message are we sending to our future leaders when there are some on the other side who are seeking to restrict free speech? Our Founding Fathers knew very well the importance of free speech to our Nation's democracy. The genius of our system of Government is the conscious choice to leave decisions in the hands of regular people, by explicitly restricting the power of Government to make them. It is not by coincidence that the Framers of the Constitution established free speech, along with freedom of the press, in the first amendment. They come together in the first amendment. Beyond first amendment principles, there are also market principles at stake. Since the end of the fairness doctrine in 1987, talk radio has flourished because of consumer-driven market demand, not because of Government command, not because of Government control. The history of the fairness doctrine is actually one of chilling freedom of speech. The reality is, if you are a broadcaster and you know that you have a Government regulator monitoring what is on your channel, your station, a pencil and paper in hand and marking with probably a stopwatch the amount of time that you discuss idea A, and then all of a sudden if you don't give what the Government regulator feels is the right amount of time to give a varying opinion to subject A, in the end you risk penalty. You put yourself and your business at risk. The reality was during the years in which the fairness doctrine was in play, it chilled freedom of expression. Some folks probably would say: Let's just play country music. Let's just do something else, but let's not talk about things because it is going to put us in jeopardy, put our livelihood in jeopardy. That is not what America is all about. At the end of the day, there is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. The issue is not which broadcaster is fair and which one is not: the issue is who makes that decision. I believe fairness is what the American public decides is fair, not some Washington politician or bureaucrat. Americans love a fair fight but there is nothing fair if the intent is to silence debate just because a Government bureaucrat or politician disagrees with it and then employs a Government bureaucrat to chill the expression of ideas. In the end, our Nation, our democracy, is best served when we let competing ideas enter the political marketplace freely, and let the best ideas win. One of my hometown newspapers, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, put it well the other day when it said in an editorial entitled ``Fairness is beautiful, especially when it's optional'': . . . let the gabbers gab--right, left, center, wherever-- without government-imposed balance. Americans can make listening and viewing decisions according to their own sense of what is fair. To have faith in the marketplace of ideas-- as we do--is to believe that, over time, good ideas will rise by their merits. We live in an age of satellite radio, of broadband, of blogs, Internet, cable TV, broadcast TV. There is no limitation on the ability of anyone from any political persuasion to get their ideas set forth. The public, in the end, will choose what to listen to, and that is their right. It is not Government's right. It is not Government's obligation or responsibility to monitor and regulate that. That is very dangerous. The fairness doctrine is a flawed idea from a bygone era that has no place in today's information age. My amendment seeks to continue to protect Americans' right to free speech and to allow for our broadcasters to contribute to our national dialog without Government censorship, without Government demand and control. That is the beauty of democracy. It is the world to which the students we will improve with this reconciliation, which contains a lot of good things, will go. In the end we want to have people who have access to the free flow of information. We want to have old people who have access to the free flow of information. We don't want to step back into a bygone era where Government was monitoring ideas, monitoring content. That is very dangerous. I will ask my colleagues at a later time to support this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my experience is much like the Senator from Alabama. When I was there in the fall, it was described to me as the ``Wild West'' and it was not very uplifting. When I was there in April, we had Minnesota National Guard soldiers who were serving in Anbar Province, and they told me of an incident in a town called Habbaniya, where a suicide bomber drove into a crowd coming out of a mosque, killing or wounding 70 Iraqis. It was the American soldiers and National Guardsmen giving blood, even though not a single American had been hurt or injured. Then they told me, the next day, or shortly thereafter, the local mayor and the local sheik came in with a list of al-Qaida operatives and said: These are the enemy. We want to work with you side by side to root them out. I ask the Senator, in your experience there, have you also seen incidents or heard of incidents where the brutality of al-Qaida against Sunnis has evoked a response from local sheiks and local elected officials to work side by side with the Americans--be they the Marines, Army, or National Guard?

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I note that if we adopt the Levin-Reed amendment, we would be doing what the Senator from New York said we should not do. We must not redeploy out of Iraq with the same failure of planning there was going in. This amendment before us today is a directive from the Senate to redeploy out of Iraq without any planning. Simply sitting here in this air-conditioned Chamber, making a statement that this is what we are going to do, without talking to the commanders on the ground would be a tragic mistake. Earlier this year, when the President talked about the surge, I raised an objection. In my travels to Iraq, it was clear to me that we were facing a battle in Anbar Province against al-Qaida in Iraq, the Sunni insurgency; and that battle, by the way, we were winning, and we see the results of that today. But in Baghdad we faced sectarian violence and faced American soldiers being in the midst of a civil war, and that troubled me. I raised concerns. But then 54 days ago we had a discussion in this Chamber. We took a rollcall vote on a bill, and the bill passed 80 to 14, with over four- fifths of the Senate agreeing that day, with rare bipartisanship that we achieved in this Chamber. That wasn't about naming a post office or a courthouse. We got an agreement to address the future of our involvement in Iraq. In that bipartisan effort on the floor of the Senate, we gave support to General Petraeus, who was confirmed unanimously in the Senate, who would provide a report to this body on the surge that I had concerns about no later than September 15. General Petraeus and Ambassador Corker, our Ambassador to Iraq, who served in Pakistan right before being selected as Ambassador to Iraq, would come back and deliver a report to this body and the President, with the President delivering a report no later than September 15. We required this report because we decided as a body that regardless of our concerns about the new strategy, we should allow General Petraeus and Ambassador Corker to execute the new strategy and to report on their progress. We recently came to broad bipartisan agreement that we should give the strategy a chance to work. How did we end up here tonight picking a date for withdrawal before the report and testimony that we mandated? I don't have the answer. I am afraid that question itself causes me to oppose the Levin-Reed amendment. I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Michigan. We have served together on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for years, working as a team to defend America and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Recently, we dealt with the possibility of dirty bombs being developed in this country. So I know he is a good man. I believe the amendment is well intentioned and I believe the transition is a goal that I share. The bottom line is we need a mission in Iraq in the sense that we cannot be fighting the Iraqis' war for them. They have to step forward and achieve power and reconciliation--things they have not done to date. We cannot, however, have a precipitous withdrawal. I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, and we have had hour after hour of testimony on the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal and the impact it would have on the ethnic cleansing in Iraq. I will talk more about the region. Ultimately, our safety is my concern. Precipitous withdrawal would set in place a series of events, none of which are positive. I didn't hear anyone come before the Foreign Relations Committee to talk about that. The Iraq Study Group, which so many have looked at and pointed to, made it clear--no precipitous withdrawal. Right now, we have an amendment that sets a withdrawal, that doesn't consult the commanders on the ground, that flies in the face of action we took 54 days ago. I can't answer the question, why now? In part, I hear from the majority leader and others. Are there polls? Do we lift our finger to the wind and say: Well, 54 days ago, we told General Petraeus to move forward. We have our troops on the ground who are carrying out their mission. Yet we are debating today to say we are going to move forward with a plan for withdrawal which has not been thought out, which has not been planned, which has not been processed in a way that you would think one should do that. We are concerned about the consequences, in spite of the fact that 54 days ago we sent a message to General Petraeus: Go forth with the surge, and then come back and report to us. There are consequences to precipitous withdrawal. If you look at Iraq--and the Senator from Arizona talked about this a little earlier-- in the northern region, Turkey has troops on the Iraqi border and inside Iraq. If we were to withdraw and if there were to be that division, you would have a Kurdistan. There are deep concerns that the Turks would move forward. There are concerns about terrorism, a group called the PKK. You have that issue of instability. You have Anbar Province in which there has been much discussion about the successes we have achieved in Anbar Province with the local sheiks joining our side. But you have foreign fighters coming in, without anyone stepping in between, from Syria, the Syrian border there, landing at Damascus Airport and coming through and then destabilizing that region and perhaps setting back the gains we have made. In the south, we have Iran. Iran clearly, as my colleagues on both sides have noted, is playing a major part in what is happening, not just in the south but in the region. The fact is, in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran. The weapons Hezbollah has have come through Iran through Syria. In the Gaza Strip in Israel, Hamas is a tool of Iran. So if we were to simply withdraw without planning, if we were to put in place a series of events that caused disruption and conflict in the region, we would give Iranians a chance to strengthen their hand. If they do that, then what do the Saudis do? I have had conversations with Saudi leaders. I am ranking member of the Near East Subcommittee. I have had conversations with Egyptian leaders, the Jordanians. They don't want to see Iran go forward. They don't want to see Iran expand its power. It is fascinating, because the Senator from New York talked about our position in the world and long overdue international diplomacy. The moderate Iraqi States in the region see the threat of Islamic extremism as fostering the support of Moqtada al-Sadr, the support of Hezbollah, the support of Hamas. They understand that is a greater threat to them than Israel. So they don't want to see us precipitously withdraw. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, has been quoted repeatedly on the floor, saying to us that we need to understand the serious consequences if we were to simply withdraw. There are consequences not just for the region but, ultimately, for us in terms of the threat of terrorism being expanded with an al-Qaida victory, if America is out. They drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. America is driven out of Iraq. That represents a threat to us. That represents greater recruitment. It represents the battle being brought from there to here. That is a real concern. We have a situation where 54 days ago we said to General Petraeus in September: Come forward with a report. Then, from that, we will go forth with a plan of action. I would hope that right away the administration now is looking at a series of choices. Senators Lugar and Warner have put that on the table. I hope that is going on now, that we understand that the Iraqi Government has not done the things that have to be done to move forward with power sharing and reconciliation. They have not met the benchmarks. I have grave concerns about their ability to do so. We have to be looking at alternatives. We have to be looking at a range of options. But why now? Why at this point in time, other than there are, I presume, interest groups on the left who are concerned that the Democratic majority hasn't done what MoveOn.Org wants them to do, which is to get us out of Iraq? We had a bipartisan agreement in this body to have a reasoned course of action, that we need to be out of the central sectarian violence. The Iraqis need to be fighting their battle. We need to maintain the gains we have had in places such as Anbar and not step back and allow that ground and that blood that has been shed to be shed for naught. But why now? Why now? What is the event that has somehow triggered the necessity to move forward today, to be here all night? If anything, from what we heard from General Petraeus on the military side, we are moving forward. On the benchmarks for things the Iraqis haven't done, we have until September. I presume one of the good things that will come out of this debate will be that we put continued pressure on the Iraqis to do what they have to do. I don't know whether Maliki has the ability to do that. I have my doubts. But I think it is really important. The Senator from Michigan said we are going to be measured by how we leave. Ultimately, we are not going to be in Iraq fighting their battle forever. We may be in Iraq a long time. If you look at this region, we may be there a long time. We have been in Germany a long time, Korea a long time. We have been in Kosovo a long time. But we need to be there, not being in the center of a sectarian battle, not being in the center of a civil war, but to make sure the Iranians don't sweep through and expand their influence. We have to make sure the Turks don't step down and destabilize the one stable region, to make sure foreign fighters don't move forward and come into Damascus Airport and come across the border near Anbar Province. We need to do that in a way in which it doesn't happen because of political pressure, it doesn't happen because of a poll, it doesn't happen because we picked a date out of thin air that says: We are doing a Defense authorization, so now we are going to get a plan for withdrawal on the floor of the Senate without listening to General Petraeus, after 54 days ago telling him he could go forward and come back in September. It is our responsibility to act in the best interest of our Nation's Armed Forces who have sacrificed so much. It is our responsibility to avoid, as Madison and Hamilton described in Federalist 62, the impulse and passion of what might seem like the easiest path--simply ending our involvement in Iraq and hoping for the best. We cannot do that. We must give the strategy the time we said we would give to it work, while at the same time preparing for our next step, something Senators Warner and Lugar have articulated so well. We need to continue to plan for the future and continue to evolve as we address new challenges and a changing environment. We need to remember that Iraq is not just a war; it is a country that is in the center of a very critical region. We have invested blood and treasure in a way we never anticipated, something I remember every time I visit Walter Reed. While our commitment is not open-ended, it is a commitment whose new strategy requires us to live up to the obligations we made when we said to our general: Move forward; when we put our troops there and said: Be in harm's way; and then to come back in September. We need to change the mission. We shouldn't have a precipitous date for withdrawal. We are going to be there long term, but we have to do it thoughtfully, strategically. We cannot have it poll driven. We cannot have it special interest driven. We should not be doing it here in the Levin-Reed amendment, which I will oppose tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont was going to speak for a couple minutes, and I wish to have the floor after that for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am disappointed that an objection has been raised. I intended to offer amendment No. 2189, which is at the desk. It is a Coleman, DeMint, Thune, Inhofe amendment which would prohibit the FCC from reinstating the fairness doctrine. I am not asking for a vote at this time. I only want an amendment to be put into the queue. Just recently, the House dealt with a similar amendment. That amendment passed the House with over 300 votes in favor. The vote was 309 to 115. My amendment says that the FCC would not be able to reinstate the fairness doctrine. It says: The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or promulgating in whole or part the requirement that broadcasters, including the Armed Forces Network, present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the fairness doctrine. There is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. In the past few weeks, there has been discussion among some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have said very publicly that it is time to reinstate the fairness doctrine. We have troops in the field of combat today putting their lives on the line and part of what we protect in this country is the first amendment--is freedom of speech. The fairness doctrine amendment is a relic of a bygone past. It was tossed on the ash heap of history in 1987. It was in place from 1949 to 1987. Its intended effect was to have the Federal Government monitor what is said on the airwaves and require broadcasters to present ``fair'' and ``balanced'' programming. The effect was much different from that. In effect, it stifled speech. If you are a broadcaster and you own a station, you could be subject to some kind of penalty if you do not provide the kind of balance that the Government says you must provide. You may well choose--and, in fact, history has shown what has happened--you may choose simply to play country music. I love country music, but I also love free speech, and we do not want to put anything in place that stifles free speech. We have gone from 1949, when we had a few TV stations and the information you got came from relatively few sources, to a world today in which we have broadband, high-speed Internet, satellites, blogs, and a whole range of information. And that is a good thing. In the end, we in this body have to respond, have to listen to the voices of people. We want an informed and educated citizenship. We want them to get diverse views. The reality, in part, of why this issue even comes up is because of concerns from my friends on the other side of the aisle that talk radio somehow is dominated by conservatives. One may argue that perhaps broadcast journalism may be dominated by liberals. There have been studies that have shown that fact. But for us, we shouldn't care whether it is dominated. And as to a response of the Government coming in and trying to somehow measure and regulate----

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield.

Mr. COLEMAN. I absolutely believe Americans should hear both sides. Absolutely. But I believe--strongly believe--the Government should not be in the position of deciding and dictating ``now here is the other side.'' In the world of communications today, Americans have all sorts of options to hear the other side. All they have to do is turn a dial, all they have to do is push a button, all they have to do is press a mouse, and they have that ability.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I concede the airwaves belong to the American people.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield for a further question.