John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, very simply, this amendment is the same as the means testing on Part B. Part D of Medicare seniors never paid for during their lifetime. This is a brand new entitlement, something they never paid for. We are asking the younger workers to pay basically for millionaires to be able to get prescription drugs. What my amendment says is we should means test those so wealthier seniors will have to pay more of their fair share for prescription drugs. That is very simply what this amendment does. I think 59 Senators voted before to make sure Part B was means tested--once again, a benefit they never paid for. This amendment does the same thing for Medicare Part D. Let's not ask a schoolteacher or a firefighter to pay for millionaires to have prescription drugs. Let's do something fiscally responsible and call on the Finance Committee to enact this very important amendment to the prescription drug program.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, am I correct, there is 1 minute on each side?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my amendment would impose an income test on the wealthiest seniors to ensure that they pay a greater share of their Medicare prescription drug coverage. A couple of years ago, we had a vote in the Senate that would income- relate--in other words, means test Medicare Part B, which pays for medical services, like doctors' services. Medicare Part D is the part that pays for prescription drugs. Mr. President, we already means test Medicare Part B. In order to put the Medicare program on better financial footing, we should extend the existing Medicare Part B income test to the Medicare prescription drug program. It makes no sense for Bill Gates's father to have his prescription drugs paid for by a schoolteacher or a firefighter or a police officer or any other middle-income American. This amendment says that a single senior, with an annual adjusted gross income over $80,000 and couples with annual adjusted incomes of over $160,000 a year would be responsible for a greater share of their Medicare Part D premium. I have a chart that shows that the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries would not be impacted by this proposal. Almost 96 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would not be affected by my amendment. This means that only the wealthiest 4.3 percent of seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D will pay higher premiums in 2008. Wealthy seniors have the means. We should not be burdening our children and grandchildren with even further debt by subsidizing wealthy seniors. That is what this amendment essentially does. It says that wealthy seniors should pay more for the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The other side of the aisle says that we should raise taxes on the wealthy. This isn't raising taxes. This is getting wealthy seniors to pay for a benefit they are receiving that they never paid for. In the past, AARP and others have said that we should not means test Medicare. In this instance, means testing is fair. Remember, that the Medicare prescription drug benefit is a new benefit. Today's seniors did not pay into the Medicare program, through payroll taxes, with the promise of a prescription drug benefit. What this amendment says is that if you can afford to pay higher prices for the Medicare Part D premium, then you should. That is, in essence, what this amendment is about. It is about fairness. Let's treat middle-income taxpayers of today and the future in a fair way by saying wealthy seniors--such as Bill Gates' father, such as my father, such as seniors who are in the upper-income brackets--pay their fair share instead of dumping this liability on future generations of taxpayers and making them pay higher taxes because we want to subsidize seniors to the current extent. The Medicare Part B program is already means tested. We should further means test the Medicare program by requiring Medicare beneficiaries who make over $80,000 a year as a single and $160,000 a year as a couple, responsible for a greater share of their Medicare prescription drug premium. To show a little support, the Washington Post, which is not exactly a conservative newspaper--and usually isn't in my corner--wrote: One worthy proposal, contained in the Bush budget, would have imposed higher Medicare prescription premiums for higher-income beneficiaries . . . Unfortunately an amendment to that effect was defeated in the budget committee. That was my amendment. If Democrats are serious about dealing with health care entitlement spending, isn't it time for them to demonstrate that? I believe it is time to demonstrate that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first of all, the Senator from North Dakota made the point that defense funding is secure. We do not in any way think we are going to underfund defense or the war funding. The point we were making about defense spending is that because everybody is going to make sure defense spending is secure, once the money for defense is put in there, money is taken out and put into other spending programs, then later in the year it is filled back in for defense. Everybody knows we are going to fund the war. Everybody knows we are going to do the critical needs of the Department of Defense. What we are arguing is that other spending is going to be increased because of the budget gimmicks because there is no transparency. What my amendment does is put transparency back into the process. That is why the Senator from New Hampshire and myself are arguing how critical this amendment is if we want to actually have some fiscal restraint, if we want to not just continue to blow up the deficits and pass this huge debt on to future generations. Without transparency, without all the budget gimmicks, the numbers that my colleagues saw that I put up and the charts I put up for the last 5 years--let's put those charts back up. For the last 5 years, $84 billion total has been added in nondefense, other types of social spending programs. And it was done, in a way, with budget gimmicks, where people, kind of sleight of hand over here, looked as though they were being fiscally responsible, but they were not. They said they were operating within the budget caps that were set out, but because then the Defense spending was declared as emergency, that allowed people to get around the Defense caps. What we are trying to do is to install some fiscal discipline. That is why we put a 60-vote, supermajority, point of order against this kind of activity. There is still flexibility. If people wanted to argue: let's take the money out, let's increase these accounts the way it has been done in the past, at least there is a supermajority required to do so. I keep going back to last fall's election and before that, when the Democrats accused Republicans in the majority of being fiscally irresponsible. This is a chance to fulfill their campaign promise of being fiscally responsible. It is time to step up, put mechanisms in place that will put the discipline into this body to help hold down the spending that goes on in this place. I will not argue that games won't be played. What we are going to do, though, is to make it more difficult to play the games. There will always be people who will try to get around whatever budget discipline we put in. The appropriators are famous for that. What we are trying to do here is to put in budget discipline, to put in a steeper wall to climb over to get around these sleight-of-hand budget tricks. That is what this amendment is about, to say let's for once be fiscally responsible around this place. Let's think about the children and future generations as far as spending is concerned. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up to the full Senate for a vote.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, this amendment is very simply a Defense firewall amendment. We have had these in the past. The chairman of the Budget Committee will argue that they did not work very effectively in the past. I would disagree. It made it more difficult to take money out of Defense and to spend it on other programs. Our amendment is a little different. It says if you are going to take money out of Defense for social spending programs, then you must do it during the budget process. It brings transparency into the budget process. In the last several years, folks have taken money out of the Defense Department during the appropriations process, put it in other social spending, and then during the emergency supplemental process they backfill the Defense Department. This has cost our country an extra $84 billion over the last 5 years. The problem is the money gets built into the baseline, which costs more money and more money and more money every year; last year alone it was $40 billion. If you want to be fiscally responsible, you should vote for this amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ENSIGN. First, I compliment Senator Conrad on his relationship with Senator Gregg. The cooperation they have displayed over the past several years should serve as an example to everyone in this body how the Senate can, and should, work. They battle fiercely, battle for their own ideas, but the collegiality they demonstrate and the respect they show one another is a good example for the rest of us in the Senate. One we should follow. It is really the way we should legislate around here. I offer them my compliments. Amendment No. 476

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so that I may call up amendment No. 476.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, to briefly describe the amendment, it is a defense firewall amendment. This is not a new idea. We have had defense firewalls in the past. They have worked with some success. There have been a few problems with them, but overall they worked with some success. We drafted the defense firewall in this amendment in a little different way than previous firewalls. These changes, I believe, will actually result in the firewall having its intended effect. That is, to make sure that the defense money in the budget is actually spent on defense. In past years, a defense firewall has, frankly, been necessary. The chairman of the Budget Committee can attest to the fact that, under Republican control, this budget enforcement tool should have been in place. I have been very critical of Republicans when we chose to underfund defense purposely to shift money to other programs. Over the last several years, we used a kind of sleight of hand and budget gimmicks, and then restored defense spending later on in emergency supplementals. In effect, this raises overall spending for the Government. Instead of honest budgeting and trying to increase certain non- defense programs in the open, we hid our spending habits from the American people. I have always said, that if you want to increase non- defense spending, have an honest vote to do so rather than using a gimmick. Fund defense honestly rather than what we have been doing, which is dishonest budgeting. We have not had the transparency under which I believe this institution should operate. When the Democrats were campaigning last year, they criticized us in a lot of ways for using budget gimmicks, and I think rightly so. It is their time to keep what they have campaigned on--honest budgeting and true transparency. That is what we need in this place. I want to take a minute to demonstrate what I have talked about for the last several years. Unfortunately, given how the new Democrat majority has chosen to fund BRAC, this Congress is continuing the bad habits of Congresses past. What this chart shows is, in 2002, we added $1.9 billion in new spending. We took away from defense, about $1.9 billion, and then added that amount back in a supplemental. And this happens because everybody knows that Congress is going to fund defense to add that spending back later. We don't want to vote to actually cut defense, so we shift the money in the regular appropriations process and put it back in during an emergency supplemental. But what happens is that the $1.9 billion in 2002 gets added into the baseline for the next year. Then the next year, we underfunded defense by $11.5 billion, we shifted the money to other programs, and then added back the defense spending during the supplemental. The effect of this is to add on to the previous year--all of that in fiscal year 2004. You can see the green bar at the bottom is the combination of the previous 2 years; that is added into the baseline. Then you do this again. Robbing from defense to once again add to the nondefense part of the baseline. This continues each year all the way up, and then you see what happens until we get to 2006. The cumulative effect of this is shown on the next chart. I know the chairman of the Budget Committee likes charts, so we wanted to make sure we would have some of our own today. The cumulative effect of doing this each year for 5 years is a total of $84 billion. We don't have the new numbers for 2007 yet, but it is about an extra $40 billion. So we are probably well over $125 billion for a 6-year total in new spending. That really is the problem. People are not being honest. If they want to increase spending, do it honestly. What our defense firewall says is that if you want to adjust defense spending, it cannot be done during the appropriations process; it has to be done during the budget process so that we are being honest with the American people. Since we assume a defense number in this budget, this amendment puts a wall around that amount so that it cannot be taken during the appropriations process. That wall says we will not take any more money out of defense to put into the other appropriations bills. This is transparency. This is honesty in budgeting. When Republicans were in the majority, the Democrats claimed that we were fiscally irresponsible. They promised that they were going to come to power and be fiscally responsible. This is an amendment that will give them the opportunity to do just that. It gives them the opportunity to reject one of the budget gimmicks that has been used to add new spending. I call on my colleagues in the majority to join with me in putting transparency into the budget process so we can help restrain Federal spending. Why do I say that? It is because when the Defense bill comes up as part of the process, no one, especially during a time of war, is going to vote to cut defense. So knowing that the Defense bill has to pass, the other bills get funded first. Defense comes up and it is slightly underfunded, so they know they have to make that up during an emergency bill. The emergency bill comes to the floor, and everybody knows it is going to pass. That is how this whole budget gimmick ends up increasing overall spending. If you support fiscal responsibility, if you don't want to add a burden of debt and higher taxes onto young people and future generations, vote for this amendment. This is a fiscally responsible way to budget and to bring transparency into the Senate. This is the kind of amendment we need going forward. Both parties should operate under this kind of honesty when it comes to budgeting. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about S.J. Res. 9 and the consequences of failure in Iraq. I want to begin by reviewing just how Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida see themselves achieving ultimate victory in Iraq. You don't have to be a serious student of history to realize that as of late, America has not exactly demonstrated the kind of collective will necessary to successfully complete military missions abroad. As a nation, it seems easy, maybe too easy, to commit ourselves, through our military, into foreign lands in an attempt to accomplish what we believe is right, either to protect our vital national interests or to free a people from bondage, or in the case of Iraq to try to accomplish both. Whatever the reason for committing ourselves to a noble cause overseas, America ventures into another country with only the best of intentions, and for a while the American people and her politicians overwhelmingly support our military and its mission. Then, when we see that victory is not as easy or as immediate as we had initially hoped, we start down a road of self doubt. We convince ourselves that our military mission was probably not all that important in the first place. We somehow twist our values to accommodate an opinion that our military expedition is not worth the effort we need to expend in order to be successful. We recoil once the realization hits us that lives and treasure are the ``coin of the realm'' when it comes to using our military to ensure our continued national security. And for too long our adversaries have witnessed this reluctance, this lack of will, to finish the task at hand. In 1982, America deployed her military to separate warring factions in Lebanon. We went in with only the best of intentions. People were being killed and it was up to us to ``do something'' about it. Then, on October 23, 1983, two truckbombs detonated in buildings housing American forces in downtown Beirut. Two hundered forty-one U.S. marines, sailors, and soldiers lost their lives that day. Six months later, America had had enough and we were out of Beirut. The Lebanese civil war would rage on for another decade, and during that time countless Lebanese, Palestinians, and Israelis would suffer as a result of our abdication of responsibility. As had always been the case before, our adversaries did not pursue us back to our shores to do us harm. But they did observe and they did note that the American public, led by her elected officials took the easy way out and departed before completing our intended mission. In 1993, the United States once again sought to ``do something'' to end a humanitarian crisis that was taking place on the African continent. In a country with no functioning central government, warlords ruled their individual pieces of territory within Somalia as personal fiefdoms. The Somali people were fodder as the warlords battled each other for control of land and resources. People were being killed. If they were not being killed by bullets, they were being starved to death. Although the situation in Somalia did not directly affect our national security, American leaders at that time answered the call to ``do something'' to alleviate the human suffering Americans were witnessing nightly as part of their television news shows and reading in the daily editorial columns of most big city newspapers. Our leaders once again answered the call by sending our young men and women in uniform to a foreign land to ``fix things.'' Soon, our military had its mission expanded beyond providing humanitarian assistance. Part of this new mission involved capturing and/or killing the Somali warlords responsible for the pain inflicted on their fellow citizens. As part of this new mission, Army Rangers conducted an assault on Somali forces in what has come to be known as the ``Black Hawk Down'' incident. Here, two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down and 19 of our Rangers killed. In the days following, film footage was broadcast over and over again on television that showed the lifeless bodies of our soldiers being desecrated as they were dragged through the streets. This footage both shocked and humbled us. The support for our mission to do good things in Somalia quickly evaporated. The costs had become too great to bear. It was no longer that important to do the right thing and we subsequently withdrew our forces from the region. Once again, our adversaries watched as the world's superpower retreated from the fight. Today, Somalia continues to flounder as a failed state and a haven for Islamic radicalism on the eastern coast of Africa. In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that the Clinton administration's decision to withdraw from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al-Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks. ``Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows,'' the terror chief recalled. ``America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.'' And those attacks promised by bin Laden did come. On August 7, 1998, al-Qaida decided to test our mettle by simultaneously bombing our Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and in the process killed 257 people and wounded over 4,000. Our tepid response once again gave Osama bin Laden comfort. Since the Clinton administration had chosen to treat terrorist attacks as law enforcement matters, America sought to prosecute in our courts those responsible. Osama bin Laden was soon placed atop the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. Along with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, the Embassy bombing were two of the major anti-American terrorist attacks that preceded 9/11. The United States responded to the Embassy attacks by freezing financial assets of related parties and by firing some missiles into al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan. The attack in Afghanistan destroyed some physical targets. However, the operation did not accomplish the destruction of bin Laden and his operatives and did not lead to any significant changes in the al-Qaida network and leadership. Al-Qaida grew bolder, stronger, and more capable as we sat on our hands. And so, here we are today, facing an embolden enemy bent on our destruction who has convinced himself that he possesses the will to break our spirit. He has done it before and he is convinced he can do it again this time. The sad part about all this is that Osama bin Laden may very well be right this time. Today we stand here debating a resolution of appeasement that directly affects our military strategy in Iraq and, by default, our overall national security for years to come. This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. I agree with the President's assessment that this legislation before us would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the U.S. Congress loses its will to fight. We precipitously withdraw our forces and leave the fledgling Iraqi government to fend for itself; Sunni and Shia factions rip the nation apart at a scale previously unimaginable. There is a mass exodus of refugees out of Iraq, and no mechanism in place to deal with them. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other states in the region feel the need to get involved. This is a terrible scenario, but it is not the worst of scenarios. Bin Laden's nightmare vision also involves a chaotic Iraq with Sunni dominated areas like al-Anbar Province becoming a safe haven from which al-Qaida can launch attacks against the United States. And we could see the Shiite dominated areas, with the help of Iran, and its own oil wealth, be used as a terrorist breeding ground, as well. Make no mistake. The Iraqi situation is vastly different from Beirut, different from Somalia, and, different from the bombing of our African Embassies. Iraq has consequences that will surely be felt here at home and around the world. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. I believe this. We will be sorry and we will regret having once again left unfinished our national security obligations. But by then it will be too late for regrets. We will find that as strong and powerful and compassionate as we think we are, we cannot ``unring'' the bell. The damage will have been done. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida followers are convinced that America is weak and decadent and they can succeed in grinding down our resolve and forcing us to retreat. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a murderer. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life. Let us resolve today not to also make him a prognosticator of things to come. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided legislation. We cannot afford to leave this fight at this time. For the sake of America's future, we cannot afford to fail. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue of great importance to the Armenian community. In order to move forward, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is for this reason that I have long sought to bring proper recognition to the crimes perpetuated against the Armenian people. April of this year will mark the 92nd anniversary of the attempted annihilation that occurred in the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923. Millions of Armenians of all ages were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The great bulk of the Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were abducted and horribly abused. There is one word that describes the horrific attempt to annihilate the Armenian people, and it is genocide. Ironically, while the United States has failed to make that recognition, Adolf Hitler, in defending his own plans to rid the world of Polish people, among others, asked, ``Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' The resolution I introduce today, with my distinguished colleague Senator Durbin, calls on President Bush to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States demonstrates significant understanding of the issues surrounding the Armenian Genocide. The resolution encourages the President to commemorate the Armenian Genocide by recognizing the persecution and extermination of over 1,500,000 Armenian citizens as genocide. The resolution calls on the President to state that the slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire was genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian genocide. It is important that the United States once and for all reaffirms the incontestable facts of history and allows our representatives to speak out about the crimes perpetuated against the Armenian people from 1915-1923. It is my hope that through recognition of these crimes our Nation and the entire world community will be able to prevent further instances of genocide, ameliorate relations between Turkey and Armenia, and increase awareness of issues such as ethnic cleansing and human rights around the globe. As we fight to ensure freedom around the globe, we must ensure that our future reflects the lessons of the past. In this case the facts are incontestable. Yes, the Armenian people were victims of genocide. Genocide at any time, at any place, is wrong and needs to be confronted and remembered. Let us come together to remember that by recognizing that what happened to the Armenian people from 1915-1923 was genocide. We owe it to the victims and to the future of freedom.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I speak today about my amendment to create the law enforcement assistance force. This amendment is a common-sense idea and I hope my colleagues would adopt this amendment. My amendment proposes the creation of a law enforcement assistance force which is a system for retired law enforcement personnel to apply to DHS, and complete the necessary paperwork and training, before a disaster occurs. Then, when disaster happens, DHS would have a pool of qualified first responders who could be called into action. These volunteers would be detailed to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency to work side by side with law enforcement located in affected communities. The amendment also provides that DHS would reimburse volunteers for their costs. The need for properly trained first responders was never greater than it was immediately after Hurricane Katrina. In the wake of this disaster, I toured the gulf region and saw the devastation firsthand. A situation caused by natural disaster was made worse by the way Federal, State and local government responded. I say this not to criticize anyone but to propose a way to improve how America will respond in the future. In the aftermath of any disaster, there is an acute need for trained rescue and recovery personnel. These needs are often met by volunteers who, having seen their fellow Americans in need, travel across country to answer the call for help. In the aftermath of Katrina, there was no shortage of volunteers who answered this call. Their willingness to help is a testament to the American spirit. Unfortunately, these volunteers were not used in a way that was equal to their spirit or the needs of the people affected by this storm. As the media reported, FEMA diverted many volunteer first responders to places outside of the disaster area. Some highly skilled emergency response volunteers were sent to Arkansas to prepare paperwork. Others were diverted to Atlanta to hand out fliers and still others were forced to attend ``sensitivity training'' seminars. Meanwhile, in the hardest hit areas of the gulf region, people suffered. Many needed basic medical care and supplies. The resources of local first responders and government officials were strained. The local responders needed reinforcements, especially when lawlessness broke out. Responding to a disaster is always a difficult job. But like we advise at-risk communities to take steps to prepare for potential disasters, the Federal Government also has an obligation to prepare in advance as well. My amendment creates a process to enable FEMA and DHS to put qualified first responders in place in the immediate aftermath of disaster. It will ensure a better Federal response by providing State and local communities with the reinforcements they need. I believe there is a willingness on the part of retired law enforcement to volunteer their experience and expertise in times of crisis. In fact, the idea for this amendment was given to me by a friend of mine, Tom Page, who is a retired Las Vegas Metro Police officer. I thank him for this suggestion and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. amendment no. 389

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today because a daunting task lies before us in Iraq. That task is the reconstruction of a war-torn and bruised nation. Let's put the battle over a troop surge or increased funding aside and join together in a strategy to one day leave Iraq, a free Iraq, in a place better than we found it. And not better by our standards, but better for the people and future of Iraq. Last week, a group of airmen from Nellis Air Force Base in my hometown were recognized with Bronze Stars for their courageous efforts in Iraq. As part of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team they have done remarkable work saving lives. CAPT Brian Castner was awarded the Bronze Star after a 6-month tour--his third tour in Iraq. His wife, Jessica, said of his mission: My grandparents fought in World War II and, because of that, Japan is our friend. And we just hope and pray at night that 30, 50 years from now that for our children and our grandchildren that Iraq will be our friend, and if his efforts today keeping people safe does that, it makes every sleepless night worth it. If we are going to succeed at making a future friend and ally out of Iraq, then we need a new direction forward. Our new military strategy must be paired with a new reconstruction strategy in order to cool off the vitriolic hatred and violence that has consumed Iraq, and this new direction must be based on realistic goals. When we first liberated Iraq from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, we were disgusted by the ruler's palaces and extreme wealth in contrast with the deplorable conditions of those he ruled. We were anxious to give the Iraqi people all that they had lacked. While our intentions were good, our expectations were unrealistic and our performance failed to deliver. We looked to build a self-sufficient democratic nation in the Middle East with an accompanying civil society, responsible and just court system, representative government, responsive police units, a respected, and a protected border. We wanted to create a model to which people of other states in the region could aspire. In hindsight, we should not have imagined that building a democracy would be so simple. It never has been. We simply did not have the strategy and tactics properly prioritized, maybe building the roof before the foundation. It is no wonder why our efforts were unsuccessful. But it is not too late to regroup. A great deal depends on our new direction being successful. Our policy needs to change from lofty aspirations to a focus on providing, as a minimum, the basic services that were available during the Saddam Hussein era. At the same time, we need to communicate that we are laying the groundwork for future opportunities that were unimaginable under that barbaric regime. We need to redirect our efforts to vital services such as water and waste water systems, irrigation canals, and a reliable electricity supply. Concentrating our resources on improving everything simultaneously is foolish and ends up being far less efficient. The laundry list of what we initially tried to accomplish in Iraq is what scholar Amitai Etzioni calls a ``scattergun approach.'' We tried to do too many things at once, and did none of them really well. Instead, Mr. Etzioni suggests, we need a ``triage'' approach. We need to make services such as water, sewers, and electricity a priority. We work on them until they are successfully completed, and then we turn to the next project. While the building of banks and schools are important, if Iraqi families can't get running water in their homes or more than a few hours of electricity a night, why should they trust us? The less tangible gifts of a free democratic system are meaningless to a mother caring for her sick child in the darkness. While our priorities have been part of the problem, our attitude may have also been a source for our difficulties. A Marine reservist from Nevada, Jon Carpenter, who served two tours in Iraq and whose brother is there now, told me about the approach taken by those around him to the Iraqis. ``Sir, this is your country. What problems do you see that need to be addressed and what can I do to assist you in these problems,'' they would ask. ``I may have some monetary resources coming, some people with skill sets to help you, and my time and energy to make the solutions happen. Where would you like to begin?'' If it had been the policy of all our military leaders on the ground to give that kind of deference to the local Iraqis, we may have been able to build a greater deal of good will and success. And don't get me wrong, our men and women in uniform have made tremendous progress in Iraq. They have worked tirelessly and have been committed to the cause, but we need to understand the importance of successfully delivering the most basic services to the Iraqi people as part of their path to self sufficiency. It will also create a situation where there is no tolerance for insurgents or their efforts to destroy what belongs to the Iraqi people. In order for the Iraqi Government to become self-sufficient, Iraq's potential for producing oil also must be realized. Currently the Iraqis are producing roughly 2.1 million barrels of oil a day. This is down from the 2.5 million barrels of oil a day produced during the previous regime. We need a plan that will reliably deliver 3 million barrels a day. At $60 per barrel, the incremental 900,000 barrels per day generates nearly $20 billion per year. This would go a very long way toward funding many of the improvements that are mandatory to stabilize the situation in Iraq. As report after report indicates, one of the challenges to building Iraq's oil revenues has been insurgent attacks against oil infrastructure. As Senator Clinton and I wrote in the Wall Street Journal, we believe a distribution of revenues to all Iraqis through an Iraq Oil Trust would mean they would have a greater incentive to keep the oil flowing, help the economy grow, reject the insurgency, inhibit corruption and commit to the future of their nation. An Iraq Oil Trust, modeled on the Alaskan Permanent Fund, would guarantee that every individual Iraqi would share in the country's oil wealth. Oil revenues would accrue to the national government and a significant percentage of oil revenues would be divided equally among ordinary Iraqis, giving every citizen a stake in the nation's recovery and political reconciliation and instilling a sense of hope for the promise of democratic values. I know there are plans that distribute the oil revenues to the different provinces, but I firmly believe that each Iraqi citizen must receive a share--it means a path to opportunity for these people. With that share, an Iraqi citizen can make money, invest in a business, use it for collateral for a home, or build savings. With that share in an Iraq oil trust comes hope for the future. There is still reason to hope for success in Iraq. Our new military strategy is showing progress on the ground, but we must continue to give our men and women in uniform the tools they need for the monumental task at hand. A focused plan for ``triage'' in the reconstruction of Iraq, coupled with a strong military strategy, will boost our credibility and secure Iraq for their future and for ours. If we don't succeed on the battleground and in the reconstruction efforts, we risk creating an enemy state that will be a safe haven for terrorists and a grave threat to generations of Americans. Instead, let us work together to ensure that 50 years from now, our friendship with the people of Iraq will be thriving. We owe it to our brave men and women, like Captain Castner, to make that vision a reality. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to send an amendment to the desk, so it becomes pending. I already cleared it with both the ranking member and the chairman.

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, since 1915, an oil portrait of Abraham Lincoln has hong in the chambers of the Nevada Assembly. The painting of our 16th President serves as a reminder of Nevada's entrance to the Union during his remarkable administration and of the special place his leadership will always hold in our State's history. I want to pay tribute today to that man who rose to the highest office in our country at one of the most turbulent times in our history. He is an example to all of a good, decent, honorable man, who contributed more to the freedom we cherish today than we may ever fully understand. February 12 was the 198th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth in a log cabin in Kentucky. We all learned about ``Honest Abe'' in grade school and his role in guiding this Nation through the Civil War. But at the very essence of Abraham Lincoln was a man of great conviction who showed incomparable humility, a tested sense of morality, and an ability to rise above personal pettiness. Learning about Abraham Lincoln's life is a humbling lesson in leadership. He was self-educated and had none of the advantages of a formal education. He taught himself the law and never stopped learning along the way. Whether it was studying history, philosophy, or military strategy, what Lincoln lacked in classroom time, he made up for in focus and determination. And while moral fiber can be taught, that doesn't mean it will have its desired effect. It is said that trials don't build character, they reveal it. Abraham Lincoln had so many trials. His tremendous character was revealed time and again. The stories are endless, but I want to share a few examples of what a giant of a man President Lincoln really was. During his days practicing law, Lincoln would often ride the legal circuit, which meant that he traveled with a band of lawyers and judges across Illinois to try cases in every corner of the State. Lincoln was admired and loved by his colleagues for his skill as a lawyer, and his gift for telling stories was legendary. It was during this time that fellow lawyers noted Lincoln's heartfelt conviction that no man was better than he. One lawyer pointed out: He arrogated to himself no superiority over anyone. . . . This sense of equality would remain consistent throughout Lincoln's life--as a man and a public servant--and would extend to other character strengths he exhibited. Lincoln was humble--to an astonishing degree. In 1855, Lincoln withdrew his name for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Although he had the greater number of votes, it became apparent that, if either he or the other anti-slavery candidate did not succumb, the cause of slavery would be the true victor. Much to the dismay of his loyal supporters, Lincoln advised the floor manager to drop his name, handing Lyman Trumball the win. Lincoln showed no hard feelings and shook Trumball's hand at his victory party. Six months later, Lincoln suffered another blow to his morale when he believed that he was part of an important patent test case. Unbeknownst to him, he was not part of the case, but he continued to prepare as if he were. When he approached the lawyers involved with the case, one of them, Edwin Stanton, drew the other aside and asked why he had brought the ``. . . long armed Ape here . . . he does not know any thing and can do you no good.'' Stanton treated Lincoln poorly in the days that followed, but six years later, Lincoln asked Stanton to be his Secretary of War. Lincoln's ability to put aside such losses--which for most people would be terrible ego blows--was inspiring. Not only did he move forward, but he wasn't blinded by hate or rage and he didn't seek revenge. Instead, he recognized the need to surround himself with the best people who would make the greatest contributions to the mission at hand. Lincoln's decision on who would join his cabinet was the perfect example of what his assistant, John Nicolay, described as ``one of great courage and self-reliance.'' Lincoln did not fill these positions with friends and loyal supporters who would agree with him and thought as he did. According to Lincoln: We needed the strongest men of the party in the Cabinet. We needed to hold our own people together. I had looked the party over and concluded that these were the very strongest men. Then I had no right to deprive the country of their services. It took great strength of character to understand that--especially when three of those men were his rivals for the Republican nomination for the presidency. These men: William Seward, Salmon Chase, and Edward Bates, were stunned by their losses to Lincoln in the primary and each maintained that he was the best man for the post well after their losses. When Lincoln embraced them for the cabinet positions, they still looked down on him as the lesser choice for president. However, Lincoln was wonderfully gifted at transforming rivals to admirers. Seward, who Lincoln named his Secretary of State, slowly came to recognize the President's strong leadership abilities. He called the President's nobility ``almost superhuman.'' Seward was not alone. But not everyone grew gradually fond of the President, as many saw his promise and brilliance immediately. Nevada's first senator William Stewart, whose seat I occupy today, described Lincoln's greatness. President Lincoln was the greatest man this hemisphere has produced. Without schooling he wrote the best English; without education in rhetoric or logic he was the most conclusive reasoner; without the slightest pretension to oratory he was the most persuasive speaker of his time. He was the kindest, most benevolent and humane man of his generation. Whoever may be second as a scholar, as a statesman and as a friend of humanity, Lincoln must be first. Lincoln also touched the hearts of the soldiers who served under him. After one of his many visits to the troops on the battlefield, one soldier wrote home that as the President passed them, his smile ``was a real reflection of his honest, kindly, heart; but deeper, under the surface of that marked and not all uncomely face, were the unmistakable signs of care and anxiety . . . In fact, his popularity in the army is and has been universal.'' Lincoln's honest, kindly heart--that the soldier referenced--was also apparent in his loyalty and willingness to take responsibility for his actions. Lincoln would not let a subordinate take the fall for a decision he had made. In 1862, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was the victim of an especially aggressive, brutal personal attack. He was accused of not providing all the backup troops to counter what turned out to be a battle of great loss to the Union. Lincoln took the unprecedented step of convening a Union meeting with all the government departments. The audience, gathered in front of the Capitol, was comparable in size to that of a crowd at an inauguration. He explained that, ``The Secretary of War is not to blame for not giving when he had none to give. I believe he is a brave and able man, and I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged on the Secretary of War.'' What a humbling story. This is what Harry Truman meant when he said, ``The buck stops here.'' Equal to his loyalty was Abraham Lincoln's courage. The Emancipation Proclamation was described by one supporter as ``. . . the greatest act of justice, statesmanship, and civilization, of the last four hundred years.'' The Executive Order, signed by President Lincoln, declared the freedom of all slaves in those areas of the rebellious Confederacy that had not already returned to Union control. By the summer of 1865, an estimated four million slaves had been freed. Hannah Johnson, the mother of a Northern Black soldier, wrote to President Lincoln about the Emancipation Proclamation, stating: When you are dead and in Heaven, in a thousand years that action of yours will make the Angels sing your praises. No doubt there are angels still singing, just 144 years later. Lincoln never considered himself a champion for the slave. His priority was upholding and defending the Union and the Constitution upon which it stood. However, it was his vision and steady leadership that ultimately brought down slavery in the United States. With this transformation also came the respect and admiration of black abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Douglass has been a frequent critic of the President's, trashing him publicly many times. However, the two agreed on the need to recruit and build black regiments to fight in the war. It was a controversial move, but Lincoln understood the impact that the soldiers would have on the rebellion. Douglass went to the White House to meet with Lincoln about some of the inequalities among black and white soldiers. Just as he had won over countless rivals in the past, Lincoln's ``humane spirit,'' as Douglass called it, won him over as well. The two formed a relationship, and Douglass came to greatly admire Abraham Lincoln. I wanted to talk about Abraham Lincoln because there is a timeless lesson in his style of leadership and his moral fiber. Today, we face a politically divided government and country. However, the issues are not as dire as the Civil War that took the lives of what today would be five million people. The United States is not on the brink of extinction. But we have an opportunity to rise above the political games and the pettiness to make progress on some of the major issues facing our Nation. We should all strive to show some of the humility, moral conviction, courage, and honesty by which Abraham Lincoln lived his life. This Nation paid a grave price in the name of freedom under his watch. Not only did freedom survive but it flourished, and he led us to new and greater heights. Abraham Lincoln lost his life in the name of that freedom. After being shot in the back of the head, Lincoln struggled for 9 hours between life and death. The Nation--north and south--mourned for this beloved man, but those most inconsolable were the men who had first been Lincoln's rivals and who had later become his closest friends and advisors. There is no greater praise than that of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton whose tribute from Lincoln's deathbed has proven true, ``Now he belongs to the ages.'' President Lincoln told an Ohio regiment in 1864: It is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come that we should perpetuate for our children's children this great and free government, which we have enjoyed all our lives. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the legacy of one of our greatest Presidents by working together and challenging each other to lead as he did. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this afternoon, I rise to add my voice to the current debate on the President's announced plan to reinforce coalition forces in Iraq by sending additional American soldiers and marines to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province in an effort to bring stability to that volatile part of that country. For some time now, Senators have been clamoring for President Bush to send additional troops to Iraq. They criticized him for trying to accomplish our goals in Iraq without committing sufficient resources to get the job done. Look, the President has recognized that a change in strategy is absolutely necessary. Many have previously called for this same strategy. But it appears to this Senator that because it is the President's plan, some Senators are predisposed against it. A simple review of newspaper and Sunday talk show transcripts reveals some Senators appear to have supported the surge before they were against the surge. Senator Kerry on NBC's ``Today'' program on June 29, 2005: We don't have enough troops in Iraq. . . . There aren't enough people on the ground. . . . The way you honor the troops and the way you provide a policy to America is to do everything possible to win. Senator Durbin on December 21, 2006: If we need initially some troops in Baghdad, for example, to quiet the situation, make it more peaceful so that our soldiers start coming home, then I would accept it. Mr. President, that is exactly what General Petraeus has said, and Secretary Gates before the Armed Services Committee said the same thing. It is an initial surge to try to get Baghdad under control so we can begin bringing our troops home. Senator Dodd on December 18, 2006, said: I'd be willing to support some additional people if we needed it in order to get the job done. He further said: Show me some demonstrable evidence that they are coming together as a people--Shias and Sunnis--sitting down and recognizing that they have an obligation to come together as a people. Then I'd be willing to support some additional people if we needed it in order to get the job done. Senator Levin in January of 2007 said: A surge would be worth considering. The American people are skeptical about getting in deeper . . . But if it is truly conditional upon the Iraqis actually meeting milestones and if it's part of an overall program of troop reduction that would begin in the next four to six months, it's something that would be worth considering. Once again, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, that is exactly what Secretary Gates said, that it is a temporary surge in order to try to bring the troops home. Senator Biden on June 29, 2005, said: There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency. Senator Jack Reed, in a press conference on November 29, 2006, said: If the military commanders in Iraq said, we need, for X number of months, 20-plus, 25,000 troops, to do this mission, I would have to listen to that proposal. I think I responded to the question before: That if the military commanders in Iraq said, we need, for X number of months, 20-plus, 25,000, troops to do this mission, and with a reasonable certainty of success, I would have to listen to that proposal, certainly. Well, Mr. President, within the last 2 weeks, there have been additional developments that would seem to add weight to the argument that this temporary reinforcement of our troops currently in Iraq is not only warranted but necessary to the overall national purpose. Those developments are the unanimous confirmation by this Senate of General Petraeus, who is to become the new commander--he is the new commander of the Iraqi multinational force--also, the testimony of the Iraq Study Group cochairman, relative to the President's plan, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the public release of the National Intelligence Estimate report on the prospects for Iraq's stability. During his confirmation hearing, General Petraeus, also the author of the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, stressed the fact that he could not succeed in providing needed security for the citizens of Baghdad and Al Anbar Province without the additional troops called for in the President's plan. General Petraeus further testified at his hearing that it was his opinion that any resolution which stated the Senate did not support the strategy to be carried out by our men and women in uniform in Iraq would be harmful to their morale. Are we going to support General Petraeus or not? The one resolution before us, I believe, is not supporting General Petraeus and the troops. Last week, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on America's interests in Iraq, at which the witnesses were the Iraq Study Group cochairman, former Secretary of State James Baker, and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Secretary Baker referenced the Iraq Study Group's report in articulating that group's position on additional troops to Iraq. He stated: We could support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. Commander in Iraq determines such steps would be effective. The only two conditions are short-term and commander in Iraq determines it would be effective. Both of those conditions have been met. Mr. Hamilton made it clear his belief that the President's plan ought to be given a chance. He said: We did not, in the Iraq Study Group report, come to the conclusion that it was hopeless and, therefore, we should just pull out immediately. The much anticipated and just released National Intelligence Estimate report entitled ``Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead'' was quite candid in its assessment that if coalition forces are withdrawn within the next 12 to 18 months, we will see significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq. Mr. President, we need to accept the fact that we are engaged in a struggle of biblical proportions. In true American fashion, though, we are doing the right thing. We are attempting to free a people from a life of tyranny and violence. We are also in a struggle against the forces of evil who are bent on our destruction. Do we pack up and leave, even though every voice of reason tells us that Iraq would implode into a terrorist state used by al-Qaida as a launching pad against the infidels, reminiscent of Afghanistan under the Taliban? And those infidels, they think, are us. As Senator McCain has reminded us time and again, Iraq is not Vietnam. When we left South Vietnam, the Viet Cong did not pursue us back to our shores. Al-Qaida is not the Viet Cong. Al-Qaida has sworn to destroy us and is committed to bringing their brand of terror to America. President Bush never said the struggle for freedom in Iraq would be easy. But since the President is the one who said that, maybe it doesn't ring quite as true to some. Maybe by quoting another who spoke passionately about similar struggles for freedom, the point could be made more clearly. Back in 1857, Frederick Douglass spoke about the struggle he knew for freedom. He said: The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. We are introducing freedom to a country and a region that has no history of such freedoms. We cannot expect to spread freedom and democracy to this region simply by wishing it so. We currently have soldiers and marines in harm's way. We have a plan before us that will aid their mission. That mission is to achieve success and leave behind a stable and democratic Iraq. Yet there are those among us who want to cut and run. There are some among us who simply want to cut and walk. And then there are others who want to have it both ways. They want to express their opposition to the idea of sending additional troops to Iraq without having to do anything that might actually translate their opposition to a reality on the ground. I belong to another group of thinkers. I belong to a group who believes General Petraeus's plan deserves a chance. I believe the temporary surge in the number of soldiers and marines in Baghdad and Al Anbar is our best chance at getting this right. None of us knows for sure whether it will work. There are always uncertainties in war. Let us all pray, for all our sakes, that this new way works. Last week, I stood here and spoke about what I thought needed to be done in Iraq. I acknowledged that mistakes have been made in this war and that I did not believe we should be playing politics while our soldiers and marines are deployed and fighting against an enemy bent on destroying our country and our way of life. I called on my fellow Senators then to set party differences aside and focus on winning this war. I am here again this afternoon making that same plea. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana be recognized next for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by myself for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss the Iraqi situation. Not the shootings and explosions we see in the streets of Baghdad and in al Anbar Province, but the struggle were currently engaged in right here in the Senate. This latter battle is arguably more important to our long-term national security than any other issue we face today. While everyone remembers the tragedy of 9/11, the pain and anguish experienced by Americans that day appears to have faded over time for an ever increasing number of our citizens. For me, it remains as vivid and as gut wrenching today as it was that September morning more than 5 years ago. It seems too easy these days to point fingers of blame at one another for our current situation in Iraq. I could stand here today and recite quote after quote from Members on both sides of the aisle who were certain that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Hussein and his Baathist regime had ruled Iraq as a personal fiefdom for more than 30 years. There is no arguing that Hussein was personally responsible for the brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, invaded two of his neighbors, supported worldwide terrorism, and violated 17 separate United Nations resolutions aimed at curtailing his WMD programs. Seventy-seven Senators voted to give President Bush the authority to act. With the clear authority from Congress to undertake military operations against Saddam Hussein, President Bush tried long and hard to seek a peaceful resolution. Saddam Hussein could not be reasoned with. Following 9/11 and in an age of nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, we could no longer afford to sit by and wait on those wanting to do us harm to land the first punch. We could not wait until we were attacked before acting. Calls for the President to act in order to protect America were loud and clear. And the President did act. In doing so, Saddam Hussein's regime was eliminated and some 28 million Iraqis were freed from a living hell on Earth. Watching the Iraqis struggle since then to establish their own democracy has not been a pretty sight. With the luxury of hindsight, it's no secret that serious mistakes were made; too few troops; de-baathification of the Iraqi government and; failure of Federal Departments other than Defense to be fully engaged in this effort, to name a few. We need to face the fact that we are in Iraq. We need to ask ourselves what do we do now. Do we pack up and leave, even though every voice of reason tells us that Iraq would implode into a terrorist state used by al-Qaida as a launching pad against the ``infidels''; reminiscent of Afghanistan under the Taliban? As Senator McCain has reminded us time and again, Iraq is not Vietnam. When we left South Vietnam, the Viet Cong did not pursue us back to our shores. . . Al-Qaida is not the Viet Cong. Al-Qaida has sworn to destroy us and is committed to bringing their brand of terror to America. This fact was evidenced recently during testimony by Lieutenant General Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al-Qaida 6 months ago revealed al-Qaida was planning terrorist operations in the U.S. Anyone willing to go to Iraq to fight Americans is probably willing to travel to America. Do we pass meaningless resolutions that mandate unconstitutional caps on the number of troops deployed to Iraq? I am not a military strategist, so I rely on the opinion of experts to educate me. General Petraeus, the new commander of the Iraqi Multi-National Coalition and author of the Army's new Counter Insurgency Manual, told me that he could not succeed in providing security for the citizens of Baghdad and al Anbar Province without the additional troops called for in the President's plan. Do we allow the President the ability to adjust those troop numbers in an effort to bring security to Baghdad and al Anbar Province? From what I see, the President has the only plan on the table that doesn't ensure defeat. It may not be a perfect plan, and it may need to be adjusted in the near term, but it is certainly a change from what we've been doing so far. One particular area that I believe needs improvement is our reconstruction effort. According to the Congressional Research Service the United States has spent over $35.6 billion on reconstruction efforts. We have to stop squandering our resources on reconstruction projects in Iraq that fail to deliver basic security and critical infrastructure. A recent article in the Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding talked of the need to abandon a scattergun approach to reconstruction which focuses on winning hearts and minds and results in many nonessential projects being started but not completed. I believe that we need to have what the author called a triage approach to reconstruction. The military calls it SWEAT: sewage, water, electricity and trash. Let's focus on getting these essential services operating at the level they were before we invaded Iraq. This approach will undoubtedly make our military effort easier. Our efforts to improve fundamental services up to this point have not received the focus and attention they deserve. We have fallen short in the area of electricity production. Before we invaded Iraq, electric power was 95,600 megawatt hours; now, it is close to 90,000 megawatt hours. The goal was originally 120,000 megawatt hours. In Baghdad, Iraqis receive about three fewer hours of electricity than before the war. Outside of Baghdad they do receive more, but we know most of the problems are in Baghdad. CRS notes that of 425 projects planned in the electricity sector, only 300 will be completed. We have done somewhat better in assistance with water and sanitation. We have provided clean water to 4.6 million more people and sanitation to 5.1 million more than before the war. But besides water, sanitation, and electricity we know that Iraq needs a functioning oil sector. Revenues from oil are necessary to fund government services, including security and maintain infrastructure. According to CRS, oil and gas production has remained stagnant and below pre-war levels for some time. The pre-war level of oil production was 2.5 million barrels per day; it currently stands at 2.0 million barrels per day. That is far below the 3.0 million barrels per day we were told Iraq was expected to reach by end of 2004. According to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, besides the destruction caused by the insurgents, poor infrastructure, corruption, and difficulty maintaining and operating U.S.-funded projects are challenges faced by the industry. We are at a pivotal point in this Nation's history. We face an enemy unlike anything ever witnessed before. We cannot wash our hands of the responsibility incumbent upon us as the leader of the free world. It is time to join together, forgetting whether we are Republicans, whether we are Democrats, remembering we are Americans. It is time to come together behind our men and women in uniform, figure out what the best strategies are, and move forward together. It used to be said that partisanship stopped at our shore's edge. We need to go back to that spirit of being Americans. We cannot afford to fail in this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I move to waive all points of order that lie against the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.