Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his very generous comments, but more importantly for his extremely positive and constructive and aggressive role in bringing this bill to fruition. He and his staff have done an exceptional job of reaching across the aisle to make sure that this bill, so critical to so many children in our Nation, was completed and completed in a manner where everybody could feel comfortable that the product was good and was going to improve the lives of these special-needs children. This bill has some exceptional strengths. It doesn't respond to all of the problems we know are out there relative to IDEA, but it makes dramatic strides forward in improving this very significant piece of legislation, which many of us have worked on for a long time. I think it is a reflection of the good faith and the good attitude brought to the table that we were able to reach an agreement. This was not an easy piece of legislation to put together. It came together not only because of our side, in the Senate, with myself, Senator Kennedy, and other Members of the committee, but because over on the House side Congressmen Boehner and Miller played a very positive role in making sure we reached an agreement. This bill's uniqueness is that it changes the paradigm relative to how we help these children. The goal is to make sure the special-needs children have a reasonably decent shot at making sure they accomplish as much as they are capable of accomplishing. So we go from an input system, where we had a lot of T's to cross and I's to dot, where we ask are these children getting the best education they can get, and are there results? It is an output look, a look at accountability to make sure these children are trained and given skills and the academic preparation they need. So it changes the emphasis of IDEA to that of being one of input and regulation--to say how far can we go to improve this child's life and education capabilities? We have trained the teachers and given them more flexibility, hopefully, and less regulation and less paperwork and more time with students. We also hope we have given parents tools to work with and given the school board tools to work with. We hope we have dramatically released the litigiousness of this exercise that created an atmosphere where parents and school boards and teachers can work out a game plan for their children and not feel they have to resort to lawsuits. In addition, we have addressed critical issues, such as the question of discipline in the classroom and how best to deal with a child who has special needs, and how that child can interface with the classroom in a positive way. I thank Senator Sessions for that. This was the most difficult part of the bill. Senator Sessions gave strong leadership and we were able to work out a strong compromise. Again, the reason this bill succeeded was because everybody came to the table in good faith and tried to reach an agreement that would be positive for the children who have special needs in our Nation. And we have been successful, in my opinion, in moving this ball well down the field toward that goal. Will there need to be more tweaking and effort in this area? Of course. That is a fact of life. But have we made dramatic strides toward giving these children a better shot at a better life? Absolutely, under this legislation. Senator Kennedy listed all the different Members on his side and many on ours who played a major role in making this bill work. I intend to put those in my statement, as I recognize my time is limited. A lot of players came to the table from a lot of different offices--on the staff side but, more importantly, on the Members' side, and worked very constructively. Certainly, we appreciated the genuine effort put forward by Members who serve on the HELP Committee to reach agreement here. I especially thank Denzel McGuire of my staff, who leads our education activities. She has been the author and the energizer of a lot of good law around here. Much of it is now bearing fruit; for example, No Child Left Behind. This will be another legacy of hers, in which she can take great pride, and in which I also take great pride. Again, I thank my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and his staff, including Connie Garner, for their very constructive role and their willingness to work so aggressively with us to reach a product that will have a very positive impact on lives. This bill is going to make a lot of kids who have special needs, with special problems, have a much better life and a much better chance at an education that fulfills their strengths and gives them a chance to use those strengths in a positive way. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are now considering the conference report on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. This bill reauthorizes IDEA, our Federal law governing special education services for children with disabilities. As we close in on the 30-year anniversary of the Federal role in special education, I think it important to highlight where we were, where we are and where we are going to ensure that children with disabilities are provided a high-quality education that prepares them for life outside the classroom. Almost 30 years ago, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act opened schoolhouse doors for children with disabilities. Prior to that landmark legislation, most students with disabilities did not attend public school. Indeed, many States had laws excluding certain children with disabilities from their schools, including the blind, deaf, emotionally disturbed or children with mental retardation. Today, special education programs have been established in virtually every school district in America. The overwhelming majority of children with disabilities--about 96 percent--learn in regular schools with other children, not in state institutions or separate facilities. In fact, half of students with disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their day in regular classrooms. Those students are increasingly gaining access to higher education, too. College enrollment rates among students with disabilities have more than tripled. Clearly, we have come a long way from the time when our students with disabilities were excluded from public schools. Still, we know that there is much to be done to ensure that children with disabilities get a better education and that we make it easier for schools to provide that education to these students. With this understanding, we have worked for more than two years to improve IDEA, keeping the needs of children with disabilities, whom we have a duty to serve, foremost in our thoughts, while balancing concerns of equity and fairness. With significant input from parents, educators and disability groups, as well as the recommendations of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, both the House and Senate passed bills that would have done much to improve IDEA and to ensure that children with disabilities receive a quality results-based education. But important differences remained. After weeks of sometimes intense negotiations, our conference committee ironed out those differences and reached agreement yesterday on a final report, bringing us one step closer to enacting important reforms that will benefit the more than 6.5 million children served by IDEA, as well as their parents, teachers, and schools. The conference report before us focuses on improved academic results for children with disabilities; frees special education teachers from bureaucratic requirements, and offers them important flexibility; helps parents and schools work together better; creates the safest possible classroom environment for all students; and strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the educational rights of children with disabilities, while making IDEA less litigious. This report does five very important things. First, it reinforces the most basic goal under IDEA: making sure students are learning. The report shifts focus away from compliance with burdensome and confusing rules, and places a renewed emphasis on our most fundamental concern making sure that children with disabilities receive a quality education. Specifically, the report: ensures States focus on improved academic results and functional performance for students with disabilities; clarifies methods for measuring student progress by replacing arbitrary benchmarks and short-term objectives with academic assessments under NCLB, including alternate assessments; provides for a national study of valid and reliable alternate assessment systems and how alternate assessments align with State content standards; and allows for the development of new approaches to determine whether students have specific learning disabilities by clarifying that schools are not limited to using the IQ-achievement discrepancy model that relies on a ``wait to fail'' approach. Second, it enables teachers to better serve their students by: clarifying what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher, and offering flexibility to new teachers who teach multiple subjects, and to teachers teaching children with severe cognitive disabilities; making it easier for special education teachers to both enter into and remain in the field of special education; focusing more resources and attention on professional development for both general and special education teachers serving children with disabilities; creating a paperwork reduction demonstration program to increase the time teachers spend on instruction and decrease the time they spend complying with cumbersome, bureaucratic requirements; and eliminating paperwork by eliminating short-term objectives for most students and reducing the number of times per year that procedural safeguards notices must be sent to parents. Third, it facilitates a better relationship between parents and schools, and improves parental involvement and options by: providing parents with increased information and access to resources to support them though dispute resolution and due process; encouraging early mediation and prompt resolution of disputes; providing new opportunities for parents and schools to meet in order to resolve problems before going to a due process hearing; allowing parents and schools to agree to make changes to an IEP during the year without having to convene a formal IEP meeting; and increasing parental involvement in IEP meetings by allowing use of teleconferencing, video conferencing, and other means of participation. Fourth, this report ensures safety and improves discipline for all children by: making the discipline provisions in current law easier to understand and implement and more fair and equitable; ensuring that positive behavioral interventions and supports remain an option on the IEP; and empowering schools to discipline children whose behavior is not the direct result of their disability. Fifth, it provides fiscal relief to school districts by: including a 7-year discretionary glide path to full funding through the discretionary appropriations process; providing new resources to assist school districts in delivering a free appropriate public education to high-need children who may require expensive services; simplifying funding for grants, making future years' funding levels and amounts more predictable; and giving districts flexibility to shift some local funding for certain programs to other ESEA priorities as federal IDEA funding increases. I thank all members of the conference committee and their dedicated staff for their hard work on this report and their cooperative spirit in working toward this day. It is certainly an endeavor of which we can all be proud. I can think of no finer way to bring my tenure as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to a close than by completing action on this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank: Senator Kennedy, and his staff, Connie Garner and Roberto Rodriguez; Senator Bingaman and his staff, Michael Yudin; Senator Sessions and his staff, John Little and Prim Formby; Senator Alexander and his staff, Kristin Bannerman; Congressman Boehner, and his staff, David Cleary, Melanie Looney, Krisann Pearce, and Sally Lovejoy; Congressman Miller, and his staff, Alex Nock; Legislative Counsel attorneys Mark Foster and Mark Synnes, without whose assistance we could not have conferenced this bill in 6 weeks; and Department of Education staff Karen Quarles, Christy Wolfe, Suzanne Sheridan, Paul Riddle, Carol Cichowski, Bill Knudsen and Michele Rovins for their superb technical assistance. Finally, I thank members of my own staff. Both Annie White and Denzel McGuire spent countless hours shepherding this legislation, and meeting with parents, educators, school groups and disability groups, while working to improve policy and reach compromises on the many difficult issues herein. Without their tireless efforts and passion for helping students with disabilities to achieve their fullest potential, we most certainly would not be here today. I would also like to recognize the efforts of Bill Lucia, Courtney Brown, and Kelly Scott. I am hopeful that we will quickly approve this conference report, so that the President can sign this important legislation into law. Attorney's Fees

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct and that is my understanding as well.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the United States of America was founded on a passion for freedom, personal liberties, and equality for all its citizens. In a fierce battle for freedom and independence, the citizens of this new world cast off the shackles of tyranny and built for themselves a land of hope and promise. So fervently held were the beliefs and ideals of this country, that a son of New Hampshire, GEN John Stark, reminded us of the price of our liberties with his admonishment to ``Live free or die.'' The heroes and Founding Fathers of that long ago time have been joined by another noble son of New Hampshire, SP Alan J. Burgess of Landaff. It is in his memory that I rise today to honor Alan for his service and supreme sacrifice in the continuing defense of this country and for his relentless defense of freedom. Specialist Burgess demonstrated a willingness and dedication to serve and defend his country by joining the National Guard after this country was attacked in September 2001, and we had begun the task of destroying the enemies of our country. Just as many of America's heroes have taken up arms in the face of dire threats, Alan too dedicated himself to the defense of our ideals, values, freedoms, and way of life. His valor and service cost him his life but earned him a place on the rollcall of honor within the pantheon of heroes this country has produced. Following basic training, Alan joined his comrades in 2nd Battalion, 197th Field Artillery Brigade, Army National Guard as a Military Policeman and began training for his deployment to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. From this unit's home base in Woodsville, NH, he would deploy in March 2004 to Iraq in pursuit of those who would threaten our way of life. During his all too brief career, Alan accumulated a significant list of accolades and experiences which testify to the dedication and devotion he held for the Army, his fellow soldiers, and his country. Alan's expertise contributed greatly to his unit's successes and cemented his place as a participant in the great endeavor known as America. Alan was recognized for his service by the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Army Reserve Overseas Service Ribbon. I offer Alan's family my deepest sympathies and most heartfelt thanks for the service, sacrifice, and example of their soldier, SP Alan Burgess. Alan exemplified the words of Daniel Webster who said, ``God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.'' Because of his efforts, the liberty of this country is made more secure. Corporal Kevin Dempsey

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to remember and honor SP Jeremy F. Regnier of Littleton, NH for his service and supreme sacrifice in the service of his country. Specialist Regnier demonstrated a willingness and dedication to serve and defend his country by joining the National Guard soon after this country was attacked in September 2001. Just as many of America's heroes have taken up arms in the face of dire threats, Jeremy too, dedicated himself to the defense of our ideals, values, freedoms, and way of life. His valor and service cost him his life, but earned him a place on the roll call of honor within the pantheon of heroes this country has produced. Following basic training and a tour in the National Guard, Jeremy joined the regular Army as a Bradley Vehicle Crewman and was assigned to various units, eventually joining his comrades in 4th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. From this unit's home base in Fort Hood, TX, he would deploy in March 2004 to Iraq in pursuit of those who would threaten our way of life. Throughout his short career, Jeremy developed a long list of accolades and experiences which testify to the dedication and devotion he held for the Army, his fellow soldiers, and his country. With tours in New Hampshire, Korea, Texas, and Iraq, Jeremy's expertise contributed greatly to his unit's successes and cemented his place as a participant in the great endeavor known as America. Jeremy was recognized for his service by the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Service Ribbon. My condolences and prayers go out to Jeremy's family, and I offer them my deepest sympathies and most heartfelt thanks for the service, sacrifice, and example of their soldier, SP Jeremy Regnier. Jeremy exemplified the words of Daniel Webster who said, ``God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.'' Because of his efforts, the liberty of this country is made more secure.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5185, which is at the desk.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate that.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Maryland for her generous comments and her hard work, especially on the mammogram bill which we just passed. I was trying to highlight one of these pieces of legislation which essentially saves the taxpayers from paying out a $100 million windfall to people who give loans to students. Those individuals were getting paid mostly by banks at 9.5 percent. This will roll that back to a reasonable interest rate of 4 percent. We will take those additional monies that have been saved and use them to waive the repayment requirements for teachers on their student loans for teachers who go into underserved areas and teach special needs kids. This is a very important event and something that needed to be done, or we would have ended up with a windfall to these lenders and these individuals who go out and teach in these tough schools on difficult subject matters would have ended up with large student loans. This is a very positive step. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his efforts in this area as the ranking member of the committee, and I thank the entire committee for its cooperation and appreciate the attention of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4555, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record without intervening action or debate.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, just to clarify, the bills we just passed are fairly significant pieces of legislation, the most significant of which is a bill which Senator Kennedy and I and many people in this body have been working on.

Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield the floor to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of H.R. 5186, which is at the desk.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have a housekeeping matter. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. The Senator has spent some time there, and we appreciate it. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Arizona if he would be willing to allow me to go forward with a unanimous consent request which the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and I have agreed to which would extend the higher education bill and which would in addition allow us to save the taxpayers $100 million from money that is now being paid out to banks that are getting unconscionably high rates of return on student loans, and take that money and apply it so that teachers who go into underserved districts or in matters such as special education could receive a much higher forgiveness of their loans, raising their forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,000. I was wondering if the Senator would allow me to offer a unanimous consent request. I believe it has been signed off on by both sides.

Mr. GREGG. That is a good point.

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

Mr. GREGG. This is within the jurisdiction of my committee, and the Senator from Massachusetts and I have worked on this. We think it is important for existing students who are paying this ridiculous interest rate--the Government is paying this ridiculous interest rate--and use the money to help teachers who are going into underserved areas. Will the Senator allow me to do that?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield the floor at this time? At some time I would like to put the body on notice that we need to handle it today.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the recent conference which was completed on the FSC bill, which is the foreign tax bill, which is a fairly complicated piece of legislation, a major piece of legislation. Certainly, I congratulate the adeptness of the people who led that bill through both the House and the Senate, because passing a bill through the House and Senate of that size is a challenge, to say the least, and the success of their getting it through is very impressive, especially in light of the fact that so much of the bill that passed the Senate did not appear in the final product as it came out of the House, and vice versa. The bill was modified significantly. The reason I did not sign the conference report--and I thought I should come to the floor to explain this--is that I do not find the bill compelling on balance. Yes, the bill does something that has to be done, which is to correct the problems the WTO has assessed against us relative to the duty that the European Union assessed against us relative to the duties and our tax law and the fact that many of our manufacturers are now being assessed a fairly significant duty as a result of penalties assessed under that finding. That needed to be corrected. That, however, was a $50 billion exercise. It could have been done in a revenue-neutral way, and it should have been done. But the bill ended up being about a $140 billion bill, of which the majority, the balance of the tax reductions in this bill are targeted toward interest groups and initiatives which are at the margin, to say the least, relative to need and are significantly, in my opinion, questionable. I will just point to one, and that is the manner in which the ethanol subsidy is proposed in this bill. Remember, ethanol is alleged to be a renewable fuel which will give us some sort of energy independence, but most of the studies have concluded--at least a major study in this area has concluded--that you actually use as much energy to produce ethanol as you use ethanol and, therefore, it really is a wash relative to whether it is a true renewable that gives us some sort of energy independence. Maybe down the road it can be produced more efficiently, but certainly right now it cannot be produced that way. It also has huge environmental impacts. In fact, ironically, the recent study by the Oceans Commission, set up by this Congress, concluded that the most significant pollutant in the oceans today is the nitrates runoff from the Midwest which is creating a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and that is having a major impact on pollution in the oceans. That is a function of agricultural practices which are basically encouraged, in many ways, by this ethanol subsidy. The way this ethanol subsidy is handled in this bill is a masterful piece of legislative activity. I do admit to that. It is masterful in that basically they take the ethanol subsidy, and today we pay 13 cents tax on ethanol, 18 cents on a gallon of gas, and they raise the tax to 18 cents for everything. All ethanol products now are paying the full gasoline tax, so there is a 5 cent per gallon revenue increase to the Federal Government, theoretically--theoretically because it is purely theoretical but beautifully done. They take that 5 cents which was going into the general fund and they move it over to the highway fund where it is absolutely required to be spent because the highway fund spends under a formula. That 5 cents is actually spent on roads, and I guess one can argue that that is good policy. Then in a movement of undeniable brilliance when it comes to raiding the American coffers of the taxpayers, they take the 5 cents and they refund it to the ethanol producers through a tax credit. So having raised the tax, they guarantee it will be spent and then they guarantee that on top of spending it they will actually refund it to the producers. Who are the producers? Well, in this instance one company produces one-third of the ethanol in this country and so they are going to get about a $2 billion windfall out of this proposal. That may be good policy if one is from the Midwest, but it is not good policy from the standpoint of producing a renewable because as a practical matter ethanol is not defensible as a renewable right now because it costs as much in energy costs to produce it as it does to use it. Its production costs equal its value. It is creating significant pollution concerns. As a result of this bill, we have created a huge new subsidy for the producers which was not there before. I have more to say on this topic. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senate in allowing me this time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think it is worth a minute or two to respond to some of the comments by the Senator from Iowa. I find them to be so inconsistent with the facts as they exist on the ground that it is difficult not to respond to them. The Senator from Iowa is doing an excellent job of Monday morning quarterbacking. However, the information that the President made his decisions on, the information that our military made decisions on was the same information available to us in the Senate at the time. It was the exact same information that led the Senator from Massachusetts, the nominee of the Democratic Party, to conclude--I will paraphrase him, and I think it is fairly close--that Saddam Hussein must be removed from office, and anybody who doesn't understand that, he should be removed from office, is not qualified to be President of the United States. He said that in a debate in New Hampshire, or in one of the debates running up to the primary, during the primary process. He went on after that to say that he had seen the information and he presumed that the information was reasonably accurate as to the threat Saddam Hussein presented. Not only did the Senator from Massachusetts say that, but, of course, President Clinton's administration said exactly that relative to the weapons of mass destruction and relative to the threat of Saddam Hussein. In fact, not only did the Senator from Massachusetts say that, not only did the prior President, President Clinton, say that, but the United Nations, in 17 different resolutions, said exactly that to the people of Iraq. As part of the world community, they told Saddam Hussein to disarm, open up his nation, stop killing his people. But he, of course, did not. I now find it extraordinarily ironic, extremely inconsistent, and reflective, in my opinion, of poor judgment that we have a nominee for the national party whose positions are being parroted by the Senator from Iowa, who is essentially saying that a policy of appeasement and defeat toward Iraq is the appropriate policy for us to pursue. They have a nominee for their national party who has said he would rather have Saddam Hussein than the chaos that is there. That is in direct contradiction to what he said before, which was that Saddam Hussein represented a threat that should be removed, and anybody who didn't understand that should not be elected President. Of course, he has said such things as the war in Iraq is ``the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.'' And we have ``taken our eye off of the ball.'' The problem with that philosophy, which he essentially says as a Monday morning quarterback that he is going to change positions from the original position relative to the war in Iraq, is that it not only undermines his credibility as a potential leader of this Nation, it undermines his ability to be able to communicate effectively with the other world leaders who are relying on our leadership. One thing we have found over time is that both troops in the field and world leaders like to know that the United States stands for something and that we do not change with the political winds or whoever our opponent happens to be as of that day. When you have a Presidential nominee of a national party, in the sense of the Senator from Massachusetts, who is essentially adjusting his message as the polling data comes in and adjusting his message as he confronts different opponents, whether it is Howard Dean in the primary when he becomes much more passive or, as he moves through the primary process, he becomes much more aggressive and then becomes much more passive again as the numbers come in, it is very hard to look to that person for the leadership you need if you are going to lead the world community. This President has done an aggressive job leading the world community. I think it is ironic that so many Members on the other side of the aisle so easily disregard the commitment and basically disrespect the commitment some of our allies have made, especially Britain which has committed thousands of troops and lost many people in this war on terrorism, both in Iraq and around the world, or Australia or Poland or Italy. These are countries which have stood by us. Granted, France is not there. France is not in Iraq. France is, however, in Afghanistan. France is working with us relative to Iran. France has chosen not to pursue the course we have pursued in Iraq, but I do not think we can let our national policy, our national defense, or our national security be determined by where France is and how France stands on issues. We, obviously, encouraged them to join us, but they decided not to. When it comes to our national security, I do not think we can have our policy decided by the French. The reason why Iraq is so critical has to be restated. We have a tactical war we have been pursuing which is essentially this: The President, with an incredible amount of energy and expertise of the military and the intelligence community, has chased the terrorists around the globe, has kicked over the rocks under which they live and has tried to bring them to justice. That is called a tactical strategy, and that, unfortunately, is going to go on for a lot of years. We are going to have to continue to hunt these people down. On the fact which reflects the inconsistency of the position of the Senator from Iowa--and there has been considerable success in this area even though the Senator from Iowa may not be willing to acknowledge it--over 75 percent of the leadership of al-Qaida has been captured or killed, Afghanistan is free, there is no longer a Taliban government there, and they will hold elections this weekend with 10 million registered to vote, 40 percent of whom are women. Those women were not even allowed out of their house prior to action there. That is significant progress. But that is a tactical effort, chasing the terrorists around the globe. We are not going to succeed in this war unless we convince the Islamic world that Western values are not a threat to the Islamic values, unless we can prove to the Islamic community at large, especially in the Middle East, that being free, that having liberty, that having the right to vote, that having a market economy, that giving the women a right to participate in society is not a negative but is rather a positive. If we are successful in setting up a nation in Iraq which has liberty, which has individual rights, which has the rule of law, which has a form of democracy, which gives women the right to participate in society at a fairly high level of equality with men, we will have fundamentally undermined the capacity of Islamic fundamentalism to recruit throughout the world because we will prove to the mainstream Islamic community in this world that Western values, rather than being a threat, is a plus. I hope that rather than being sunshine supporters of our efforts in that part of the world, we would recognize that we are involved in what is a major strategic effort to try to win the war on terrorism. We are not in Iraq to benefit the Iraqis. We are in Iraq to keep America safer, and the way we keep America safer is by having Iraq turned into a successful free nation where people have liberty, people have freedom, women have rights, and there is a democracy where people can vote. They are going to hold elections in January. As Prime Minister Allawi said when he was here, Iraq has become the cutting edge in the area of the fight on terrorism. It is hope which is confronting the fear of the terrorists. We should be supporting people such as Prime Minister Allawi trying to protect their nation. It is noted that 13,000 Iraqis have died in Iraq. That is a huge number of people, and it is a sad commentary, but those individuals have died in a process to try to obtain freedom for their nation, in many instances. Certainly, that number compares rather dramatically with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were murdered under the Saddam Hussein regime. Our goal, of course, is to create an Iraq where death is the exception rather than the rule, where the rule of law is the rule, and where liberty exists and where, as a result, the freedoms that encourage people to flourish are allowed to flourish themselves. We will have, in that way, undermined the role of the terrorists, and the hope that Mr. Allawi is seeking will be realized. The accomplishment will significantly improve our safety and lead directly to America being safer. That is a quick response to the very long statement of the Senator from Iowa. I thought some comment should be made. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I object. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be yielded 5 minutes and that I be given 15 minutes after the Senator.