Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside for the purpose of resubmittal of a technical correction to an existing amendment and laying down a second amendment.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise today to address an amendment that I have filed to the 9/11 recommendations bill, amendment no. 317. This amendment would prohibit rewarding the families of suicide bombers for such attacks, and stiffen penalties for other terrorist crimes. The first part of the amendment would create a new offense of aiding the family or associates of a terrorist with the intent to encourage terrorist acts. This provision is targeted at those individuals who give money to the families of suicide bombers after such bombings. The amendment would make it a Federal offense to do so if the act can be connected to the United States, and if die defendant acted with the intent to facilitate, reward, or encourage acts of international terrorism. Let me offer an example of why this amendment is necessary. In August 2001, a Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a Sbarro pizza parlor in Jerusalem. He killed 15 people. Among those killed was an American citizen, Shoshana Greenbaum, who was a schoolteacher and who was pregnant at the time. Shortly after this bombing took place, the family of the suicide bomber was told to go to the Arab Bank. The bomber's family began receiving monthly payments through an account at that bank, and later received a lump sum payment of $6,000. According to accounts in the press, this is not the only time that the Arab Bank has funneled money to the families of suicide bombers. One news account describes a branch of the bank in the Palestinian territories whose walls are covered with posters eulogizing suicide bombers. According to other news accounts, suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories are recruited with promises that their families will be taken care of financially after the attack. Saudi charities, the Palestinian authority, and even Saddam Hussein have rewarded suicide bombers' families for their acts. According to the BBC, Saddam Hussein paid a total of $35 million to terrorists' families during his time. Obviously, Saddam Hussein's actions are no longer a concern, but we should all be deeply concerned about other wealthy individuals and financial institutions who continue to pay out these rewards. It is undoubtedly the case that in some instances these payments make the difference in whether an individual will commit a suicide bombing. My amendment would make it a Federal crime, with extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases that can be linked to U.S. interests, to pay the families of suicide bombers and other terrorists with the intent to facilitate terrorist acts. My amendment also makes several other needed improvements to our antiterrorism laws. The amendment increases the maximum penalties for existing material support offenses. The material-support statutes have been the Justice Department's workhorse in the war against terrorists, accounting for a majority of prosecutions. These statutes are also very effective at starving terrorist groups of resources. My amendment increases the penalty for giving material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization from a maximum of 15 years to a maximum of 25 years. The penalty for providing material support to the commission of a particular terrorist act is increased from a maximum of 15 years to a maximum of 40 years. And the maximum penalty for receiving military- type training from a foreign terrorist organization is increased from 10 years to 15 years. The amendment also adds attempts and conspiracies to the substantive offense of receiving military-type training, and denies Federal benefits to persons convicted of terrorist offenses. Finally, my amendment expands existing proscriptions on the murder or assault of U.S. nationals overseas for terrorist purposes, so that the law punishes attempts and conspiracies to commit murder equally to the substantive offense. The amendment adds a new offense of kidnapping a U.S. national for terrorist purposes, regardless of whether a ransom is demanded. And the amendment adds sexual assault to the definition of the types of injury that are punishable under the existing offense of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. I ask unanimous consent that a number of news articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first I have a modification of my amendment No. 357 I would like to send to the desk. That amendment has already been offered.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at this point I wish to briefly address another amendment, amendment No. 317, which is already pending. This is an amendment which would prohibit rewarding families of suicide bombers for such attacks and stiffen penalties for other terrorist crimes. This is one we can hopefully adopt on a bipartisan basis. It would create the new offense of aiding the family or associates of a terrorist with the intent to encourage terrorist acts. It is targeted at those individuals who give money to the families of suicide bombers after such bombings. The amendment would make it a Federal offense to do so if the act can be connected to the United States and if the defendant acted with the intent to facilitate, reward, or encourage international acts of terrorism. Let me offer an example of why this amendment is necessary. In August of 2001, a Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a Sbarro pizza parlor in Jerusalem. Among those killed was an American citizen, Shoshana Greenbaum, who was a schoolteacher and who was pregnant at the time. Shortly after this bombing took place, the family of the suicide bomber was told to go to the Arab Bank. The bomber's family began receiving monthly payments through an account at that bank and later received a lump payment of $6,000. According to press accounts, this is not the only time Arab Bank has funneled money to the families of suicide bombers. One news account describes a branch of the bank in the Palestinian territories whose walls are covered with posters eulogizing suicide bombers. According to other news accounts, these suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories are recruited with the promises that their families will be taken care of financially after the attack. Saudi charities, the Palestinian Authority, and even Saddam Hussein have rewarded suicide bombers' families for their acts. According to one account, Saddam Hussein paid $35 million to terrorists' families during his time. Obviously, his actions are no longer of concern, but we should all be deeply concerned about other wealthy individuals and financial institutions that continue to pay out these rewards. It is undoubtedly the case that in some instances, these payments make the difference in whether an individual will commit a suicide bombing. My amendment will make it a Federal crime, with extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases that can be linked to U.S. interests, to pay the families of suicide bombers and other terrorists with the intent to facilitate terrorist acts. My amendment also makes other improvements to the antiterrorism laws, primarily by increasing the maximum penalties for various aspects of the material support offenses, which already exist in law. I hope, as I said, my colleagues will view this as an amendment which we can adopt on a bipartisan basis. It is an important amendment to ensure that another avenue of terrorism can be shut off. I ask for my colleagues' affirmative consideration of this amendment No. 317, and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesies extended to me.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain introducing the Walnut Canyon Study Act of 2007. I cosponsored similar legislation in the last Congress. That legislation had a favorable hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Unfortunately, we were unable to enact it before the Congress ended. The bill is simple. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, utilizing a third-party consultant, to conduct jointly a study of approximately 31,000 acres surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument. The purpose of this study is to help the land managers ascertain the best long-term management strategy for these surrounding lands in order to protect the natural, cultural, and recreational values. I want to emphasize that adding these acres to the monument is not the end goal of this study. As stated, the study area consists of approximately 31,000 acres. Approximately 25,000 acres are currently managed by the Forest Service through the Land Resource Management Plan for the Coconino National Forest. The plan was amended in early 2003 with local input to close the area to motorized access and remove the land encircling the monument from consideration for sale or exchange. The plan, as amended, is under revision. The remaining acres are comprised of State trust land managed by the State Lands Department and the Walnut Canyon National Monument itself, which is managed by the National Park Service. A small number of acres, about 200, are private land. That private land is already subject to the Coconino County and the Flagstaff City Council-approved Flagstaff-area Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan, RLUTP, which restricts development within the study area. This legislation is the product of extensive public input that included State and local officials, Federal agencies, and local citizens who use the land surrounding the monument. This public participation highlighted the core of the debate: how can we best protect the natural and cultural resources in the area while continuing the multiple-use management in a way that has stability and permanence. I hope that this independent study will help answer that important question. I urge my colleagues to approve the bill at the earliest possible date.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain introducing the Walnut Canyon Study Act of 2007. I cosponsored similar legislation in the last Congress. That legislation had a favorable hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Unfortunately, we were unable to enact it before the Congress ended. The bill is simple. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, utilizing a third-party consultant, to conduct jointly a study of approximately 31,000 acres surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument. The purpose of this study is to help the land managers ascertain the best long-term management strategy for these surrounding lands in order to protect the natural, cultural, and recreational values. I want to emphasize that adding these acres to the monument is not the end goal of this study. As stated, the study area consists of approximately 31,000 acres. Approximately 25,000 acres are currently managed by the Forest Service through the Land Resource Management Plan for the Coconino National Forest. The plan was amended in early 2003 with local input to close the area to motorized access and remove the land encircling the monument from consideration for sale or exchange. The plan, as amended, is under revision. The remaining acres are comprised of State trust land managed by the State Lands Department and the Walnut Canyon National Monument itself, which is managed by the National Park Service. A small number of acres, about 200, are private land. That private land is already subject to the Coconino County and the Flagstaff City Council-approved Flagstaff-area Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan, RLUTP, which restricts development within the study area. This legislation is the product of extensive public input that included State and local officials, Federal agencies, and local citizens who use the land surrounding the monument. This public participation highlighted the core of the debate: how can we best protect the natural and cultural resources in the area while continuing the multiple-use management in a way that has stability and permanence. I hope that this independent study will help answer that important question. I urge my colleagues to approve the bill at the earliest possible date.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, a colleague of mine asked a little earlier if I would give a brief report of a trip to Iraq, from which I just returned, and I thought I would take this time to do that. Several of my colleagues, both from the House of Representatives and the Senate, Democrat and Republican, were able to make this trip, and I want to report primarily on what we found when we went to Iraq. I will start by saying we were in Israel the same day Secretary Rice met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and so we had an opportunity to speak with a lot of leaders in Israel as well about the status of the negotiations that had been thought to proceed there, but with Hamas now likely being a part of the Palestinian Government they are likely going to come to a halt. This is most unfortunate. Obviously, neither Israel nor the United States can have direct dealings with a government which is dominated by a faction that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist or renounce terrorism or agree to previous Palestinian agreements. This will complicate the process of reaching a permanent accord that the people in the Palestinian areas particularly want to have and the people of Israel also want to have in order to bring violence to a close against them. So, unfortunately, the news out of Israel is pretty much the same as it has been year after year after year after year: Israel simply does not have a partner for peace at this time. Obviously, Secretary of State Rice is continuing to pursue the situation as best she can to try to help the Israelis achieve that situation. With regard to the Iraq situation, I took away three primary points from our visit, and I want to discuss them briefly. The first is that after having talked to our commanders on the ground, General Petraeus and General Odierno, and a variety of other general officers as well as troops of other rank, and Iraqi leaders, there is a sense of cautious optimism about the new plan that has been announced and, in fact, is already being implemented. Our troops have begun to arrive, Iraqi troops arriving in greater numbers than before, primarily in the city of Baghdad, and a new military strategy and a political, economic, and diplomatic strategy has begun to play out. Early signs are encouraging, though everyone cautioned that there will be signs of progress, because they think it is a plan that can succeed, but there will also be bad days. Nobody should declare victory simply because things seem to be going well for a while. An illustration of this is for about 3 days prior to our arrival there had been no major incidences of violence in the city of Baghdad, yet they were not willing to applaud that too loudly. Good thing, because as we were leaving the country, a couple of car bombs exploded. Clearly, it will be a matter of progress that is not necessarily obvious and certainly will take a while to achieve. Nonetheless, progress is possible this time because things are now different. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq told us that in his visits with people on the streets of Baghdad he was seeing something new, and he said it was an attitude that this time things are different; that there is an opportunity here for success, for a plan to succeed, where it didn't exist before. It is not simply because of greater American presence, it is also because the Iraqis are beginning to do things differently than they had done in the past. Whereas some people call this a troop surge, I think it is important to note there are many other factors involved in addition to the addition of Iraqi and American troops. For example, the Iraqis are now going to be much more involved in maintaining control of an area after it has been secured. Sometimes in the past the Iraqi or American troops would take an area, would clear it of terrorists or militias, only to have those people infiltrate back when we left. Clearly, an Iraqi presence must be maintained in order for stability to be preserved, and that is what we are now beginning to see. The Iraqi Shiite death squads and militia activity have gone way down. Again, this is, we believe, partially because of some things the Iraqi Government has done, rounding up about 600 of the Shiite troublemakers and working with the people in places such as Sadr City to persuade them it is better to not resist control by the Iraqi Army than it would be to fight. These are positive signs, but they are certainly not an end of the problems. There are little things that are being done, for example, to prevent car bombs from going into marketplaces and blowing up a lot of people. They are beginning now to create what are in effect pedestrian malls such as we have in the United States, where vehicles are not permitted. It might still be possible for a single suicide bomber to go into a market and cause destruction but certainly not as much as a car bomb. The point is, from a military tactical standpoint, the rules of engagement, the activities of the Iraqis, as well as what the United States is doing, all are working together to consolidate the gains that have been made there and to preserve them. There is also a diplomatic, economic, and political aspect. The newly announced legislation to distribute the oil revenues of the nation to the people of the country is a very important political step that will give the people of Iraq more confidence in their Government. This was mentioned by our Ambassador Khalilzad when we were there. So from the military standpoint there are some signs this is already beginning to work, and I certainly hope our colleagues here in the Congress will do their best to allow this plan to work. That brings me to the second point. Our commanders, both in Kuwait and Iraq, were very clear that it was important the Congress pass the supplemental appropriations bill to provide the necessary equipment and reinforcements and not to tie down the tactics of the people on the ground. They are very concerned that we will somehow put limits on the kind of equipment that goes into theater or the number of troops or where the troops go or how they are deployed. Clearly, Congress should not be trying to micromanage a war, and I hope my colleagues who have discussed that in some preliminary way will see the detriment to such an action and will not offer resolutions that would change the way these commanders are able to do their job. This is something specifically that General Petraeus asked of us. The third and final point is the Iranian influence in Iraq cannot be denied. It is true, I cannot read Farsi, the language of Iran. On the other hand, when General Odierno holds up an item, one of those explosive devices, and says, in Farsi this says ``made in Iran,'' I can't verify that, but I believe General Odierno. He pointed to batch and serial numbers on a variety of other weaponry and said, this can all be traced back to Iran. We are clearly in a situation where we must make it crystal clear to the Iranian leaders this will not be tolerated. We have a right to protect our troops in Iraq and their interference will be intolerable. We have to find a way to get the Iranians to back off of that. Those were three of the key impressions we took from our trip to Iraq, and I think it boils down to this: Some of our colleagues like to point to the Baker-Hamilton report and say that is what we should be doing instead of what we are doing. Remember what Lee Hamilton said in testimony before the Senate not too long ago. He said, the President's announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. He specifically said, give it a chance to succeed. I think there was some discussion of elements of the study commission's recommendations, such as a temporary troop surge, which is not inconsistent with what we are now doing. That is what I think we should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission. I deliberately did not raise the question of the debate back here in Washington with the troops I met, but they raised it with me. They can see what is going on. They watch television. They are very well aware of what is being debated here. They are proud of what they are accomplishing. Their morale is high. Yet I submit to my colleagues that were we to pass legislation that would undercut their ability to perform their mission as they see it, clearly that situation could change, and this bothers our troops. It certainly, I think, would have the effect of causing our enemies to ask whether we have the will to see this through. As General Petraeus said, this is all about a test of will. Secretary Gates, I believe, and General Petraeus said it as well--in this war, it is a test of wills, and the United States has to make it clear we have the will to see it through. From our perspective as legislators, we can take the example of the young men and women whom we put in harm's way to achieve a message. The example I take from them is they have the will. They understand what is at stake. They are proud of what they are doing, and they want us to help them achieve the mission. I think that is the least we can do under these circumstances. I hope my colleagues, as we debate in the ensuing days, will keep in mind what these folks in Iraq who are on the ground looking at this every day have to say about the situation and that we won't do anything to undercut them but that we will do everything in our power to support their mission.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, speaking to this resolution, I wish to be clear that it had been my intention to cast a ``no'' vote to proceeding to this nonbinding resolution. The majority, of course, has to muster 60 votes in order to proceed on that particular resolution. I believe my time will be more productive fulfilling a commitment I have made to lead a trip to Iraq. Without disclosing when or precisely where we will be in the Middle East, I will tell my colleagues that I will be able to personally deliver a message not only to our troops of support of the American people for their mission but also hopefully to deliver a message directly to the Prime Minister of Iraq that we expect him to continue to fulfill the commitments he has made to carry out this new strategy, which has signs of success already, and to learn directly, firsthand from our commanders and troops on the ground, their assessment of how this new mission is proceeding. What the Congress needs to do is to provide assistance and to be able to bring home a report unfiltered through the media of precisely where the conditions stand right now. While I would have voted no, in effect, I will be voting no by my presence in Iraq. There are three reasons I oppose the resolution to move forward with this particular nonbinding resolution. First of all, we have been debating almost nonstop this subject of Iraq, now, for several weeks-- both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. So there has been no lack of debate. Rest assured that Republicans are committed to continuing this debate for as long as the American people believe it is productive. We welcome debate. We also welcome something else: The opportunity to express ourselves in a meaningful way, not simply on a nonbinding resolution. We have no objection to voting on this nonbinding resolution as long as we can also vote on something that is actually more meaningful than that, and that is a resolution that demonstrates we will not withdraw support for our troops. We aim to support them in their mission. Having been precluded, blocked, for being able to have a vote on that resolution, what we are saying is that we should move forward with the debate, but until the majority leader is willing to provide Members a vote on the resolution for support of the troops, we should not be voting on other resolutions. I think this is time for Democrats to take a stand. Either you support the troops in the battlefield or you don't, none of this sort of slow bleed and nonbinding resolution debate. The nonbinding resolution obscures your true position. It seems to me, if you merely seem to tell the President you don't like what he is doing, you have plenty of opportunities to do that, but a resolution can have a very deleterious effect on the morale of our troops, on our enemies who see it as a sign of weakness, and perhaps on our allies who wonder if we see the mission through. If you are serious about stopping this effort because you believe it has failed or cannot succeed, obviously you need to do what Congress has the ability to do and that is vote no on the funding of the troops. Instead, what we have been told is that in the House of Representatives, after this first step of the nonbinding resolution, there will be a second step, this slow-bleed strategy, a concept that says Congress will begin to micromanage how troops are deployed in the field and around the world and equipment provided to them, and that will determine whether any will receive Congress's continued support. We cannot condition our support for the troops. They need to know that when we send them into harm's way, they will have everything they need from reinforcements to equipment. This sort of slow-bleed strategy that has been announced over in the House of Representatives is extraordinarily dangerous and deleterious to our mission. First of all, it seems to me there are some signs of success. This is the first reason I would have voted no on the resolution. We do need to give the new strategy the President has announced a chance to succeed. There are plenty of stories, and I will have them printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, about some initial successes-- the Shiite militia leaders appearing to leave their strongholds in Baghdad in anticipation of our plan to increase our activities there. The powerful Shiite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr has left Iraq, spending his time in Iran away from the danger that might await him if he stayed in Baghdad. In Al Anbar Province in the west, the tribal sheiks have now significantly begun to align themselves with the United States, as a result of which we have been able to recruit hundreds more police officers who were not possible to recruit in the past. A real sign is the fact that Sunni and Shiite Arab lawmakers have announced plans to form two new political blocs in Iraq. The Iraqi military is taking a significantly, more robust role, now ordering tens of thousands of residents to leave homes--these are the so-called squatters--that they are occupying illegally, and, instead, saying they will have the original owners of those homes come back. This is important because the people who have been displaced or dispossessed primarily are Sunnis. The Shiite militias came in and kicked them out and allowed squatters in their home. It is highly significant the Iraqi Government has said, through a LTG Aboud Qanbar, who is leading this new crackdown, that they are going to close the borders with Iran and Syria, they are going to extend the curfew in Baghdad, set up new checkpoints and reoccupy the houses that have been occupied by the illegal Shiites. Another significant change, they actually raided a Shiite mosque which was a center of illegally armed militias, kidnapping, torture and murder activities and a place where a good deal of weapons had been stored. This, in the past, had not been done. But it is now being done, all as a part of Maliki's commitment to change the rules of engagement and to commit himself to support politically the victories that had been occurring on the ground militarily but which were fleeting because when you capture people and put them in jail, if the politicians get them out of jail the next day, you have gained nothing. We need to give it a chance. I referred to former Representative Hamilton of the Hamilton-Baker Commission, who said in testimony: So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, the president's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a chance, because we heard all of this. This that you confirmed . . . the day before yesterday, this is his idea. He's the supporter of it. Give it a chance. Second, we need to support this mission and oppose the nonbinding resolution opposed to it because it would send a horrible message not only to our troops and military leaders but to our allies and to our enemies. General Petraeus, whom I mentioned a moment ago, at his confirmation hearing got this question from Senator Lieberman. Senator Lieberman: You also said in response to a question from Senator McCain that adoption of a resolution of disapproval . . . would not . . . have a beneficial effect on our troops in Iraq. But I want to ask you, what effect would Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval of this new way ahead that you embrace--what effect would it have on our enemies in Iraq? Lieutenant General Petraeus: Sir, as I said in the opening statement, this is a test of wills, at the end of the day. And in that regard . . . a commander of such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel that there's no hope. Senator Lieberman: And a resolution--a Senate passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that--well, some clear expression that the American people are divided. Lieutenant General Petraeus: That's correct, sir. Soldiers believe the same thing. From ABC News, on February 13, they asked Army 1SG Louis Barnum what they thought of the resolution. They had strong words. Here is what one said: Makes me sick. I'm a born and raised Democrat--it makes me sad. On the NBC nightly news, January 26, interview of three of our soldiers. SPC Tyler Johnson said: Those people are dying. You know what I am saying? You may support--'oh, we support the troops' but you're not supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what they believe for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me. SSG Manuel Sahagun: One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way. There was in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 15, a poignant communication from an Army sergeant whose name is Daniel Dobson. He said: The question has been posed to me recently what congressional resolution hurts troops morale the most. No doubt we would be happy to come home tomorrow. But the thought is bittersweet. Most servicemembers will tell you the same thing: There is no honor in retreat . . . and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight for a cause. Those of us who fight [for peace] know all too well that peace has a very bloody price tag. The American people believe this as well. FOX News, according to an opinion dynamics poll in the last couple of days, 47 percent of the American people say it is more likely to encourage the enemy and hurt troop morale compared with 24 percent who think it would make a positive difference to the policy of the United States toward Iraq. So we better be careful what kind of message is sent through a so- called nonbinding resolution. It would not change the course of what we are doing on the ground in Iraq, but it can certainly affect our enemy and the morale of our troops and our allies. I conclude by saying it seems to me it would be a huge mistake to proceed to vote only on a resolution which is acknowledged by its proponents as being merely a first step toward a second step of reducing and ultimately removing support for the troops whom we have sent into harm's way. Far better it would be for us to continue this debate at the conclusion of which we would vote on another resolution which would explicitly express our support for our troops and their mission. To expound in further detail, I oppose this resolution and would vote ``no'' on taking it up without considering other resolutions first, because it would put a halt to the progress which has begun to occur in Iraq since the President announced new strategy. Some examples: shiite militias leave sadr city Shiite militia leaders already appear to be leaving their strongholds in Baghdad in anticipation of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to increase the troop presence in the Iraqi capital, according to the top U.S. commander in the country. ``We have seen numerous indications Shia militia leaders will leave, or already have left, Sadr City to avoid capture by Iraqi and coalition security forces,'' Army Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. said in a written statement submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of his confirmation hearing today to be Army chief of staff. moqtada al-sadr living in iran The powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has left Iraq and has been living in Iran for the past several weeks . . . With fresh American forces arriving in Baghdad as part of the White House plan to stabilize the capital, officials in Washington suggested that Mr. Sadr might have fled Iraq to avoid being captured or killed during the crackdown. sunnis battle al qaeda in al anbar Before tribal sheiks aligned themselves with U.S. forces in the violent deserts of western Iraq, the number of people willing to become police officers in the city of Ramadi--the epicenter of the fight against the insurgent group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq--might not have filled a single police pickup. ``Last March was zero,'' said Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, the Marine commander in western Iraq, referring to the number of men recruited that month. With the help of a confederation of about 50 Sunni Muslim tribal sheiks, the U.S. military recruited more than 800 police officers in December and is on track to do the same this month. Officers credit the sheiks' cooperation for the diminishing violence in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. sunnis and shiites move away from sect-arianism Sunni and Shiite Arab lawmakers announced plans [January 31] to form two new blocs in Iraq's parliament they hope will break away from the ethnic and religious mold of current alliances and ease sectarian strife. But though both blocs said they hoped to eventually draw in members of all ethnic and religious groups, one initially will be made up entirely of Shiite Muslim politicians and the other of Sunni Muslims. iraq military taking a leading role The Iraqi government on Tuesday ordered tens of thousands of Baghdad residents to leave homes they are occupying illegally, in a surprising and highly challenging effort to reverse the tide of sectarian cleansing that has left the capital bloodied and balkanized. In a televised speech, Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, who is leading the new crackdown, also announced the closing of Iraq's borders with Iran and Syria, an extension of the curfew in Baghdad by an hour, and the setup of new checkpoints run by the Defense and Interior Ministries, both of which General Qanbar said he now controlled. iraqi security forces raid shiite mosque A U.S. military spokesman on Thursday hailed a joint American-Iraqi raid on Baghdad's leading Shiite Muslim mosque as proof that the Baghdad security plan is being applied evenly against all sides of the country's sectarian divide. In a statement released Thursday, the U.S. military said the mosque was raided ``during operations targeting illegally armed militia kidnapping, torture and murder activities.'' It said the mosque had been used ``to conduct sectarian violence against Iraqi civilians as well as a safe haven and weapons storage area for illegal militia groups.'' Sunni Muslims have reported being held and beaten in the mosque, but little had been done about it before. The Supreme Council's armed wing, the Badr Organization, has been accused of kidnapping and torturing Sunnis. The statement said U.S. forces guarded the area around the mosque while Iraqi soldiers entered it with the cooperation of its security guards. baker and hamilton have urged the senate to capitalize on this progress Hamilton: So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, the president's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a chance, because we heard all of this. The general that you confirmed 80-to-nothing the day before yesterday, this is his idea. He's the supporter of it. Give it a chance. Baker: And let me . . . read from the report with respect to this issue of the surge, because there are only two conditions upon our support for a surge. One is that it be short-term and the other is that it be called for by the commander in Iraq. President Bush said this is not an open- ended commitment. Secretary Gates said this is a temporary surge and . . . General Petraeus is the guy that's to carry it out and he was the person that originally recommended it. I also oppose this resolution because I believe it would send a horrible message to our troops and our military leaders, our allies and our enemies. The majority leader has said that he doesn't think the resolution ``matters'' substantively, and that the politics are all that is important. He said: Well, it doesn't matter what resolution we move forward to. You know, I can count. I don't know if we'll get 60 votes. But I'll tell you one thing: There are 21 Republicans up for reelection this time. I believe, contrary to the opinion of the Majority Leader, that the non-binding words in this resolution do matter. Here's why. General Petraeus Believes the resolution hurts his Mission. This is from Petraeus' confirmation hearing: Senator Lieberman. You also said in response to a question from Senator McCain that adoption of a resolution of disapproval, . . . would not . . . have a beneficial effect on our troops in Iraq. But I want to ask you, what effect would Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval of this new way ahead that you embrace--what effect would it have on our enemies in Iraq? Lieutenant General Petraeus. Sir, as I stated in the opening statement, this is a test of wills, at the end of the day. And in that regard . . . a commander in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel that there's no hope. Senator Lieberman. And a resolution--a Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that--well, some clear expression that the American people were divided. Lieutenant General Petraeus: That's correct, sir. Soldiers believe the resolution undermines them. ABC News, Feb. 13: ABC News recently asked Army sergeants in Ramadi what they thought of the resolution, and they had strong words. ``Makes me sick,'' said First Sgt. Louis Barnum. [I'm] born and raised a Democrat--it makes me sad.'' ``I don't want to bad mouth the president at all. To me[,] that is treason,'' said SGT. Brian Orzechowski. From NBC Nightly News, January 26: Specialist Tyler Johnson: Those people are dying. You know what I'm saying? You may support--``Oh, we support the troops,'' but you're not supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what they believe for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me. SSG Manuel Sahagun: One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way. SPC Peter Manna: If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain. From Fort-Worth Star Telegram, February 15, 2007: Army SGT Daniel Dobson: The question has been posed to me recently what congressional resolution hurts troop morale the most. No doubt we would be happy to come home tomorrow. But the thought is bittersweet. Most service members would tell you the same thing: There is no honor in retreat . . . and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight for a cause. Those of us who fight for [peace] know all too well that peace has a very bloody price tag. The American Public Believes That The Resolution Undermines The Troops From FOX NEWS quoting an opinion dynamics poll: 47 percent say it is more likely to encourage the enemy and hurt troop morale, compared with 24 percent who think it would make a positive difference to U.S. policy toward Iraq. Finally, this resolution is but the first step in a ``slow bleed'' strategy, and should be rejected for that reason as well. Democrats claim that they just want an up or down vote on this resolution to send a message to the President, but I fear that the real plan is much more expansive. If this resolution passes, votes to cut off support for our troops and micromanaging the war won't be far behind. In the other Chamber, Representative Murtha has made it clear that he intends to bleed our troops of support for their mission in Iraq. Speaking about his resolution, Murtha said: ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind.'' Speaker Pelosi essentially endorsed this slow-bleed strategy, according to reports in The Poltico this morning. Those who believe that this vote is a simple gesture, and that it will be the last word on the ``surge'' from this body, then why did Senator Feingold say on the floor just this morning that the Warner resolution is a ``first step''? Please listen to these additional quotes from some of my Democratic colleagues: This is from the Foreign Relations Committee, January 24, 2007: Senator Biden: But there's also one other thing, and I commit to everyone today, and I will end with this: that unless the President demonstrates very quickly that he is unlikely to continue down the road he's on, this will be only the first step in this committee. I will be introducing--I know Senator Dodd may today introduce and another may--I know Senator Obama, Senator Kerry, probably all of you have binding, constitutionally legitimate, binding pieces of legislation. We will bring them up. On ``Meet The Press,'' January 28, 2007: Mr. Russert: Do you believe that it's inevitable Democrats will cut funding for the war off? Senator Schumer: Well, we'll certainly ratchet up the pressure against President Bush. The bottom line is that this escalation, for instance, is so poorly received, not just by Democrats, but by all of the American people. Our first step will be this sense of the Senate resolution. But it's only the first step. From Speaker Pelosi, February 13, 2007: A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor. If our Democratic colleagues don't intend to make this resolution the ``first step'' in a campaign to cut off funding for our operations in Iraq, then why won't they allow a vote on the Gregg resolution? In summary, debate? Yes. But votes that are meaningful--not just on a critical non-binding resolution but on a commitment of support for our troops and their mission as well.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, 95 years ago today Arizona became the 48th State in the Union when, on February 14, 1912, President William Taft signed the Arizona Statehood Act. Today, just as almost a century ago, Americans are drawn to Arizona's economic opportunity, culture, and natural beauty. At the time of statehood, Arizona's population numbered in the hundreds of thousands, but it was growing quickly, from around 200,000 in 1910 to over 330,000 in 1920. Today, it is the Nation's fastest growing State, with a population of more than 6 million. Tourists flock to the State for its cultural heritage and scenic beauty. Arizona is home to four national parks and many other national monuments and historic sites. Many who visit these sites are heeding the advice of Theodore Roosevelt, who said of the Grand Canyon, ``You cannot improve on it. But what you can do is to keep it for your children, your children's children, and all who come after you, as the one great sight which every American should see.'' From its days as a rough Wild West territory to the dynamic State it is today, Arizona's beauty and culture has captivated those who have experienced it. I wish the State a happy birthday.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first let me compliment my colleague, Senator Bunning, for a fine statement. I endorse his call for unity. In a time of war, a country needs to be unified, especially when we send our young men and women into harm's way. They need to know we support the mission that we put them in harm's way to try to achieve. I remember years ago I used to see bumper stickers that said, ``Give peace a chance.'' Today we need to dust off some of those bumper stickers, write a couple of extra words in, and give the President's plan for peace a chance. We are going to have a debate next week among those who believe the President's plan deserves a chance to succeed and those who disagree. I believe the latter position is dangerous, and it would be dangerous to express that point of view with a vote of the Senate in support of a resolution to that effect, especially since it appears people whom we have relied on in the past for advice are also now saying give the President's plan a chance and because events on the ground are beginning to suggest that his plan is already beginning to work. There has been a great deal of discussion about the Baker-Hamilton report. Critics of the President's plan have frequently held that report up as evidence that we need to take a different course of action. But yesterday, appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Member of the House of Representatives Lee Hamilton both argued that the President's plan should be given a chance to succeed. Maybe that surprised the chairman, but here is what they testified. Representative Hamilton: So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, the President's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a chance, because we heard all of this. The general that you confirmed 80-to-nothing the day before yesterday, this is his idea. He's the supporter of it. Give it a chance. That is Lee Hamilton. Former Senator and Secretary of State Baker said: . . . the study group set no timetables and we set no deadlines. We believe that military commanders must have the flexibility to respond to events on the ground. And he said, in response to a Senator: Senator, one of the purposes of the surge, as I'm sure you have heard from General Petraeus, when you confirmed him, is to give the Iraqi government a little more running room in order to help it achieve national reconciliation by tamping down the violence or pacifying, if you will, Baghdad. That is the purpose of this strategy. As I said, there is already evidence, even though the strategy has certainly not been implemented in full, that even the prospect of its implementation is beginning to have an effect. It is clear the Iraqi Government, in its pronouncements, has already begun to sound a lot different to these terrorists than they did in the past, when the Iraqi Government didn't always back up the U.S. efforts. When we would go into an area, we would capture these killers, and a couple of days later they would be back on the street because somebody with political influence in Iraq would see that it happened. The idea is the Iraqis are now going to take charge and not allow that to happen. And in addition to U.S. troops, there will be twice as many new Iraqi troops helping to make sure it does not happen. Here are a few excerpts from the news media. From the Washington Post, February 1, 2007: Shiite militia leaders already appear to be leaving their strongholds in Baghdad in anticipation of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to increase the troop presence in the Iraqi capital, according to the top U.S. commander in the country. He said: We have seen numerous indications Shia militia leaders will leave, or already have left, Sadr City to avoid capture by Iraqi and coalition security forces,'' Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said in a written statement submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of his confirmation hearing today to be the Army chief of staff. Already beginning to work. The article continues: Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr has ordered his militia not to confront U.S. forces and has endorsed negotiations aimed at easing the deployment of American troops in his strongholds, according to Sadrist and other Shiite officials. This is the idea. In Anbar Province, where the pressure from al-Qaida has been very strong, there is now news that the sheiks in Anbar Province are beginning to work with us. Just one report from the Washington Post of January 27: With the help of a confederation of about 50 Sunni Muslim tribal sheiks, the U.S. military recruited more than 800 police officers in December and is on track to do the same this month. Officers credit the sheiks' cooperation for the diminishing violence in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. We have just mounted a big offensive with the Iraqi military in Najaf, and I quote from a Washington Post story of January 29: Iraqi soldiers, backed by U.S. helicopters, stormed an encampment of hundreds of insurgents hiding among date palm orchards in southern Iraq in an operation Sunday and set off fierce, day-long gun battles during the holiest week for the country's Shiite Muslims. Iraqi security officials said that the troops killed scores of insurgents while foiling a plot to annihilate the Shiite religious leadership in the revered city of Najaf. There is also political movement in the country. Let me quote from a story from the Los Angeles Times of February 1: Sunni and Shiite Arab lawmakers announced plans Wednesday to form two new blocs in Iraq's parliament they hope will break away from the ethnic and religious mold of current alliances and ease sectarian strife. There has also been a lot of talk about whether the mission of our forces should be one of which is to help secure the borders. This is something else that the Iraqis have pledged that they need to do, particularly in their relationships with Syria and Iran. Quoting from the same Los Angeles Times story: Iraq indefinitely halted all flights to and from Syria and closed a border crossing with Iran as the government prepares for a security crackdown, a parliament member and an airport official said Wednesday, the Associated Press reported. The airport official said that flights to and from Syria would be cancelled for at least two weeks and that service had been interrupted on Tuesday. Hassan al-Sunneid, a member of the parliament's defense and security committee, told the AP that ``the move was in preparation for the security plan. The State will decide when the flights will resume.'' So it is already beginning. No resolution passed here in the Senate is going to stop this new strategy. It appears to already be having some success. My only concern is the disagreement of some of our colleagues that it can't succeed will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, merely because it could embolden our enemies and cause our allies to wonder whether we still have the will to continue until we have achieved our mission in Iraq. But perhaps the message I am most concerned about that these resolutions would send is not only to the enemy and to our allies, but to our own troops and to their families. There has been quite a bit of discussion of a news report on the NBC Nightly News last Friday, Brian Williams reporting, who specifically called upon Richard Engel, who was in Iraq, to report on what he had found there. I will work through his report, but here is what Engel said: It's not just the new mission the soldiers are adjusting to. They have something else on their minds: The growing debate at home about the war. Troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they have been fighting for. Twenty-one year-old SP Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it is like firsthand before criticizing. Here is what SP Tyler Johnson then said on the TV news. Those people are dying. You know what I'm saying? You may support--``Oh, we support the troops,'' but you're not supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what they believe for, and what we die for. It just don't make sense to me. Richard Engel then said: Staff SGT Manuel Sahagun has served in Afghanistan and is now on his second tour in Iraq. He says people back home can't have it both ways. And now Staff SGT Manuel Sahagun is on the camera and says: One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way. And then Engel says: SP Peter Manna thinks people have forgotten the toll the war has taken. And SP Peter Manna says: If they don't think what we are doing is a good job, everything that we have done here is all in vain. Engel concludes: Apache Company has lost two soldiers and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for. We cannot send that message to our troops and to their families, that we disagree with the mission we are putting them in harm's way to try to achieve. As these three young men, our finest, have said, speaking to the American people: You can't say you support the troops if you don't support what we are trying to do here, what we might die trying to accomplish. That is why we have to be careful about resolutions in the Senate. Every Senator has an immense capability of expressing his or her point of view. We have all done that. We all continue to do it. We can get before the cameras any time we want to. We can let our folks back home know what we feel. And I dare say there are probably 100 different opinions in this body of 100 people. We all have a little different view of it. And we can tell our constituents what we think. We certainly can communicate that to the President and people in the military. What we don't have to do is to go the next step and pass a resolution that first of all is nonbinding and has no effect on the implementation of the strategy, which is already beginning and will go forward, but can have a very detrimental effect on our enemies, on our allies, and on our own troops. When General Petraeus was here testifying before his confirmation, he was asked a question about the resolutions to the effect of would it be helpful, and he said: No, it would not be helpful. Then he went on to talk about the object of war being to break the will of the enemy. He said: This would not help us--it would hurt us--break the will of the enemy, especially in a war like the one we are fighting with terrorists around the globe today--a war of wills. It is important for us not to send the signal that our will is flagging, that there is great disagreement in our country about the desire to continue. In this war of wills, we should be unified and in support of the mission we are sending our troops to try to accomplish, and in support of the general whom we have confirmed to carry out that mission. So I hope my colleagues will think very carefully about the words they speak, the actions they take, and reflect on what others will think of what we do here in this body. We are not simply speaking to the President, trying to send him a message. Everyone else in the world will get that message. And as much as we might manipulate the words in a resolution to try to bring 60 Senators all in consensus to what the resolution says, we all know what the headlines the next morning are going to say all around the world if a resolution like this were to pass: ``Senate Declares No Confidence in President's Strategy.'' ``U.S. Senate Goes on Record as Opposing Bush Plan.'' You can write the headline. Those are the words that will resonate around the world. Let's not make any criticism of the President or his plan become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's be as united as we can in supporting our troops by supporting the mission we are sending them on, hoping it will succeed; if we want, expressing concerns we have about that, but doing so in a way that doesn't undercut the message. We can do both of these things in this great open society. People expect us to have debate about important issues such as matters of war and peace, and we can do that without undercutting the mission here. I go back to where I started in quoting former Representative Lee Hamilton, cochairman of the Hamilton-Baker commission in his testimony yesterday here in the Senate: So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, the President's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a chance, because we have heard all of this. The general that you confirmed 80 to nothing the day before yesterday, this is his idea. He's the supporter of it. Give it a chance. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first let me compliment my colleague, Senator Bunning, for a fine statement. I endorse his call for unity. In a time of war, a country needs to be unified, especially when we send our young men and women into harm's way. They need to know we support the mission that we put them in harm's way to try to achieve. I remember years ago I used to see bumper stickers that said, ``Give peace a chance.'' Today we need to dust off some of those bumper stickers, write a couple of extra words in, and give the President's plan for peace a chance. We are going to have a debate next week among those who believe the President's plan deserves a chance to succeed and those who disagree. I believe the latter position is dangerous, and it would be dangerous to express that point of view with a vote of the Senate in support of a resolution to that effect, especially since it appears people whom we have relied on in the past for advice are also now saying give the President's plan a chance and because events on the ground are beginning to suggest that his plan is already beginning to work. There has been a great deal of discussion about the Baker-Hamilton report. Critics of the President's plan have frequently held that report up as evidence that we need to take a different course of action. But yesterday, appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Member of the House of Representatives Lee Hamilton both argued that the President's plan should be given a chance to succeed. Maybe that surprised the chairman, but here is what they testified. Representative Hamilton: So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, the President's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a chance, because we heard all of this. The general that you confirmed 80-to-nothing the day before yesterday, this is his idea. He's the supporter of it. Give it a chance. That is Lee Hamilton. Former Senator and Secretary of State Baker said: . . . the study group set no timetables and we set no deadlines. We believe that military commanders must have the flexibility to respond to events on the ground. And he said, in response to a Senator: Senator, one of the purposes of the surge, as I'm sure you have heard from General Petraeus, when you confirmed him, is to give the Iraqi government a little more running room in order to help it achieve national reconciliation by tamping down the violence or pacifying, if you will, Baghdad. That is the purpose of this strategy. As I said, there is already evidence, even though the strategy has certainly not been implemented in full, that even the prospect of its implementation is beginning to have an effect. It is clear the Iraqi Government, in its pronouncements, has already begun to sound a lot different to these terrorists than they did in the past, when the Iraqi Government didn't always back up the U.S. efforts. When we would go into an area, we would capture these killers, and a couple of days later they would be back on the street because somebody with political influence in Iraq would see that it happened. The idea is the Iraqis are now going to take charge and not allow that to happen. And in addition to U.S. troops, there will be twice as many new Iraqi troops helping to make sure it does not happen. Here are a few excerpts from the news media. From the Washington Post, February 1, 2007: Shiite militia leaders already appear to be leaving their strongholds in Baghdad in anticipation of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to increase the troop presence in the Iraqi capital, according to the top U.S. commander in the country. He said: We have seen numerous indications Shia militia leaders will leave, or already have left, Sadr City to avoid capture by Iraqi and coalition security forces,'' Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said in a written statement submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of his confirmation hearing today to be the Army chief of staff. Already beginning to work. The article continues: Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr has ordered his militia not to confront U.S. forces and has endorsed negotiations aimed at easing the deployment of American troops in his strongholds, according to Sadrist and other Shiite officials. This is the idea. In Anbar Province, where the pressure from al-Qaida has been very strong, there is now news that the sheiks in Anbar Province are beginning to work with us. Just one report from the Washington Post of January 27: With the help of a confederation of about 50 Sunni Muslim tribal sheiks, the U.S. military recruited more than 800 police officers in December and is on track to do the same this month. Officers credit the sheiks' cooperation for the diminishing violence in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. We have just mounted a big offensive with the Iraqi military in Najaf, and I quote from a Washington Post story of January 29: Iraqi soldiers, backed by U.S. helicopters, stormed an encampment of hundreds of insurgents hiding among date palm orchards in southern Iraq in an operation Sunday and set off fierce, day-long gun battles during the holiest week for the country's Shiite Muslims. Iraqi security officials said that the troops killed scores of insurgents while foiling a plot to annihilate the Shiite religious leadership in the revered city of Najaf. There is also political movement in the country. Let me quote from a story from the Los Angeles Times of February 1: Sunni and Shiite Arab lawmakers announced plans Wednesday to form two new blocs in Iraq's parliament they hope will break away from the ethnic and religious mold of current alliances and ease sectarian strife. There has also been a lot of talk about whether the mission of our forces should be one of which is to help secure the borders. This is something else that the Iraqis have pledged that they need to do, particularly in their relationships with Syria and Iran. Quoting from the same Los Angeles Times story: Iraq indefinitely halted all flights to and from Syria and closed a border crossing with Iran as the government prepares for a security crackdown, a parliament member and an airport official said Wednesday, the Associated Press reported. The airport official said that flights to and from Syria would be cancelled for at least two weeks and that service had been interrupted on Tuesday. Hassan al-Sunneid, a member of the parliament's defense and security committee, told the AP that ``the move was in preparation for the security plan. The State will decide when the flights will resume.'' So it is already beginning. No resolution passed here in the Senate is going to stop this new strategy. It appears to already be having some success. My only concern is the disagreement of some of our colleagues that it can't succeed will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, merely because it could embolden our enemies and cause our allies to wonder whether we still have the will to continue until we have achieved our mission in Iraq. But perhaps the message I am most concerned about that these resolutions would send is not only to the enemy and to our allies, but to our own troops and to their families. There has been quite a bit of discussion of a news report on the NBC Nightly News last Friday, Brian Williams reporting, who specifically called upon Richard Engel, who was in Iraq, to report on what he had found there. I will work through his report, but here is what Engel said: It's not just the new mission the soldiers are adjusting to. They have something else on their minds: The growing debate at home about the war. Troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they have been fighting for. Twenty-one year-old SP Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it is like firsthand before criticizing. Here is what SP Tyler Johnson then said on the TV news. Those people are dying. You know what I'm saying? You may support--``Oh, we support the troops,'' but you're not supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what they believe for, and what we die for. It just don't make sense to me. Richard Engel then said: Staff SGT Manuel Sahagun has served in Afghanistan and is now on his second tour in Iraq. He says people back home can't have it both ways. And now Staff SGT Manuel Sahagun is on the camera and says: One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way. And then Engel says: SP Peter Manna thinks people have forgotten the toll the war has taken. And SP Peter Manna says: If they don't think what we are doing is a good job, everything that we have done here is all in vain. Engel concludes: Apache Company has lost two soldiers and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for. We cannot send that message to our troops and to their families, that we disagree with the mission we are putting them in harm's way to try to achieve. As these three young men, our finest, have said, speaking to the American people: You can't say you support the troops if you don't support what we are trying to do here, what we might die trying to accomplish. That is why we have to be careful about resolutions in the Senate. Every Senator has an immense capability of expressing his or her point of view. We have all done that. We all continue to do it. We can get before the cameras any time we want to. We can let our folks back home know what we feel. And I dare say there are probably 100 different opinions in this body of 100 people. We all have a little different view of it. And we can tell our constituents what we think. We certainly can communicate that to the President and people in the military. What we don't have to do is to go the next step and pass a resolution that first of all is nonbinding and has no effect on the implementation of the strategy, which is already beginning and will go forward, but can have a very detrimental effect on our enemies, on our allies, and on our own troops. When General Petraeus was here testifying before his confirmation, he was asked a question about the resolutions to the effect of would it be helpful, and he said: No, it would not be helpful. Then he went on to talk about the object of war being to break the will of the enemy. He said: This would not help us--it would hurt us--break the will of the enemy, especially in a war like the one we are fighting with terrorists around the globe today--a war of wills. It is important for us not to send the signal that our will is flagging, that there is great disagreement in our country about the desire to continue. In this war of wills, we should be unified and in support of the mission we are sending our troops to try to accomplish, and in support of the general whom we have confirmed to carry out that mission. So I hope my colleagues will think very carefully about the words they speak, the actions they take, and reflect on what others will think of what we do here in this body. We are not simply speaking to the President, trying to send him a message. Everyone else in the world will get that message. And as much as we might manipulate the words in a resolution to try to bring 60 Senators all in consensus to what the resolution says, we all know what the headlines the next morning are going to say all around the world if a resolution like this were to pass: ``Senate Declares No Confidence in President's Strategy.'' ``U.S. Senate Goes on Record as Opposing Bush Plan.'' You can write the headline. Those are the words that will resonate around the world. Let's not make any criticism of the President or his plan become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's be as united as we can in supporting our troops by supporting the mission we are sending them on, hoping it will succeed; if we want, expressing concerns we have about that, but doing so in a way that doesn't undercut the message. We can do both of these things in this great open society. People expect us to have debate about important issues such as matters of war and peace, and we can do that without undercutting the mission here. I go back to where I started in quoting former Representative Lee Hamilton, cochairman of the Hamilton-Baker commission in his testimony yesterday here in the Senate: So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, the President's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a chance, because we have heard all of this. The general that you confirmed 80 to nothing the day before yesterday, this is his idea. He's the supporter of it. Give it a chance. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time under the previous quorum call and this quorum call and any future quorum call be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will briefly describe this amendment. It extends for an additional period of time three provisions of the Tax Code that relate to smaller businesses that the Committee on Finance agreed should have this tax relief and provides for a more balanced bill in terms of the extension of the tax provisions. It deals with leaseholds and restaurant renovations, new restaurant construction and owner-occupied retail. It is identical to an amendment the Senate tabled last week except that it drops the revenue offset since Senator Baucus had identified that offset as the primary problem he had with the amendment. Specifically, it would extend three provisions of the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007 through the end of 2008. The three provisions are the 15-year recovery period for leasehold improvements in restaurant renovations, as current law provides they run through the year 2007; 15-year recovery for new restaurant construction, which is a new provision; and another new provision, 15-year recovery period for retail improvements. My chart shows what we have done in the Committee on Finance and what I am proposing here. These are the three provisions covered by the amendment before the Senate at this time. We have added the two new provisions in green for new restaurants and retail, and we have extended the leasehold and restaurant provision by 3 months. All three of these would expire at the end of March of next year. What we do in this amendment is extend them through the end of the year. The reason should be obvious: For businesses to plan ahead, they need a little bit of lead time. To provide only a 3-month extension, for example, is not very much tax relief. We all acknowledge that the point of this relief in the first place, which the committee unanimously agreed to, was to help small business be able to offset the cost of the minimum wage increase. If we are going to do that, it should be meaningful. This amendment simply extends from a 3-month period to the end of the year and extends the two new provisions as well through the end of 2009. Let me describe each of these three provisions. The leaseholds and restaurant renovation provision under current law are depreciated over a 15-year period, but this treatment only applies to property placed in service by the end of 2007. The amendment that came out of the Committee on Finance, the Baucus Committee on Finance substitute, would extend this 15-year recovery period by 3 months for property placed in service by March 31, 2008. Under the two new provisions, new restaurant construction, there is currently no law provision allowing for accelerated depreciation of new restaurant construction, and the Baucus Committee on Finance substitute provides to correct this problem with a 15-year recovery period for such new restaurants. It is an important and necessary change, but it only, under the Committee on Finance bill, provides the treatment from the date of enactment through March 31, 2008. And the same thing for owner-occupied retail. There is currently no provision allowing for accelerated depreciation of improvements made to owner-occupied retail space. The Baucus Committee on Finance provides a 15-year recovery period for improvements made to such spaces, thus putting these establishments on the same footing as leasehold. The bill provides this treatment from the date of enactment through March 31, 2008. The committee had recognized the importance of these depreciation periods for owner-occupied retail, new restaurant construction, and leaseholds and restaurant renovations. There is no dispute about that, no debate about that. The only question is how far the relief should be extended. While obviously everyone appreciates in this case the 3-month extension, it is hardly enough to be able to say to these small businesses: We solved your problem; we put a big burden of paying for the minimum wage increase on you, but we have enabled you to offset that by depreciating your property more quickly and being able to plan for your future construction needs. Clearly, that provision does not do the trick. Even these two new provisions, as welcome as they are, only extend the relief through March of next year. Again, what my amendment does is extend it through the end of the year. That is all it does. Let me illustrate the importance of the tax provisions that the Finance Committee passed and which we are seeking to extend by this amendment. If you stop and think about it, the policy justification for a 39- year depreciation recovery period for new construction of a restaurant, for example, makes no sense at all. How many of you know of any restaurant that has not done a thing to the restaurant for 39 years? If you are in the restaurant business, you have to constantly upgrade your facilities. Certainly, your kitchen facilities have to be upgraded. And new construction and renovation should obviously be treated the same way. Under this bill, they are given a 15-year depreciation schedule. Now, that is the same depreciation schedule as for convenience stores, of course--a direct competitor of quick-service restaurants. They can use the 15-year depreciation schedule for all construction, new or renovation. Under their provision of the Tax Code, it is permanent law, so we do not have to extend it each year. So what the Finance Committee has done is to try to bring some sense of balance and fairness into the code to treat like properties in a like way. If you are a fast-food restaurant, it does not matter whether you are a convenience store or regular restaurant, whether you build the place new or you simply spend the money to renovate, the expense of what you have done should be depreciated over the same period of time. Fifteen years is probably too long, but that is the period that has been selected. It should be the same for all. By allowing restaurateurs to deduct the cost of renovations and new construction on this shorter schedule, many more restaurant owners will be in a position to grow their business and to continue to create more jobs. That is the key to offsetting the expenses of the minimum wage. By definition, encouraging more new restaurants to be built means more new restaurant jobs. That is a tautology. This is important because the restaurant industry is uniquely impacted by a minimum wage increase. Of the nearly 2 million workers earning the minimum wage, 60 percent work in the food service industry. Furthermore, the last time Congress increased the minimum wage, 146,000 jobs were cut from restaurant industry payrolls, according to information from the industry. That is why this provision I am offering today is so important. The very people who are going to bear the impact--namely, the workers in restaurants, who could see their jobs evaporate as a result of passage of the minimum wage increase--will find that their job is going to be OK when their restaurant can expand or build a new restaurant, thus creating more new jobs. Instead of having to lay people off in order to pay the increased minimum wage, the businesses will be able to create more jobs and, therefore, everyone would be able to be employed by them. This is the theory. The Finance Committee agrees with the theory by adopting these two new provisions and extending the existing provision for 3 months. But as I said before, it did not do the job well enough. This is very modest relief and hardly gives a restaurant, for example, the confidence it can continue to make improvements and receive the favorable tax treatment, the 15-year writeoff provision we are providing in the law. That is why it is important to continue to extend it. It would be nice if it were permanent, as it is for convenience stores. That is what it should be. It would be nice, as under the work opportunity tax credit, if it went out through the year 2012 or 2013. That would be nice. We are simply taking it to the end of the year 2009. That is not too much to ask to help these small businesses. Let me just note a couple of the objections that came from the chairman. The first had to do with so-called balancing of the work opportunity tax credit and the tax relief for small businesses. Now, the work opportunity tax credit, as you can see with this red line on the chart, the committee bill went to the end of 2012. And these others only go through March of 2009. That is hardly balanced. Moreover, all of these provisions have always attracted bipartisan support. It is not like the work opportunity tax credit is a Democratic provision and the retail improvements are a Republican provision. We have all supported both provisions. Both make sense. We understand that. So it is not like somehow there has to be a partisan reason to support this but not support this, or this or this, as shown on the chart. We do not need partisan politics injected into this debate. So there is no reason now to politicize these issues, characterizing them as Republican or Democrat. It is obvious the bill is not balanced. Even if you assume there should be some balance, the work opportunity tax credit, as I noted, is extended for 5 years, while the accelerated depreciation for leasehold and restaurant improvements is extended for a 3-month period. As I noted before, the primary objection of the chairman before was over the offset. I understand that. It was a somewhat controversial offset. Of course, in the committee, when I offered this amendment, the chairman said unless I had an offset, it would be declared out of order. So we looked for and thought we had an offset that would be approved. But it turned out the chairman did not like that offset. That was his primary objection to this provision. So we will simply remove that offset and provide that we will extend the provisions for another 9 months through the end of 2009, without an offset of any tax increase. But let me just make this point. We are talking about a very temporary extension of an important tax provision. This leasehold and restaurant provision has been in existence now for some time. We are extending it all of 3 months. Yet under the theory of those who say it has to be offset by a new tax increase, we would have to permanently find a source of revenue that would pay for this 3-month extension. That is a perversion of the pay-go concept. It is inappropriate, especially for provisions that generate jobs. We should not have to pass a permanent tax increase in order to be able to fund a temporary provision of the Tax Code that helps to create new jobs. As I said before, when you build a new restaurant, you are creating new jobs. That is obvious. And when you create new jobs, you can better afford to hire the people who would be at the minimum wage, 60 percent of whom are in the restaurant business, and there is a job there for them. So it makes sense to extend these provisions. The work opportunity tax credit, as beneficial as it might be, does not create new jobs. So if anything, you would want to balance with more emphasis on these three provisions than you would under the work opportunity tax credit. So I guess the bottom line of this is that the reason for objecting to this provision, based on the lack of an offset, does not make sense in terms of practical economics, given the fact that the provisions that we would extend in 2008 are job creators and would create the very jobs that people earning the minimum wage could then move into. Without the creation of these new jobs, some businesses are going to have to lay people off, and there will not be jobs for them. This would provide for those jobs. Mr. President, I guess the bottom line is this: We have seen, unfortunately, the debate over these amendments break down along primarily party lines. I think that is very unfortunate because a small business owner can be a Republican, a Democrat, or anybody else. They create the bulk of jobs in our society. They pay a huge amount of the taxes. They will be the ones most hard hit by the increase in the minimum wage. If we pass a minimum wage increase with bipartisan support, it seems to me we should follow the leadership of the Finance Committee in extending these tax provisions in a bipartisan way. And when we only extend a provision for 3 months, to me, it is not a good-faith recognition of the problem we have placed on that small business by the imposition of the minimum wage mandate. We need to keep faith with those businesses by providing a longer extension of the tax provisions that benefit them in a way that enables them to pay for this minimum wage increase. That is how we would be keeping faith with these small businesses. So I hope we can eschew the partisanship that has characterized the previous votes, we can appreciate the importance of extending these provisions which, after all, were created in a totally bipartisan way in the Finance Committee, and we can recognize it is possible to both raise the minimum wage for low-income workers and help create new jobs for them with these tax provisions. I hope when it comes time to consider a motion to table this particular provision that my colleagues will vote against a motion to table or support the provisions if we have the opportunity for an up- or-down vote.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there are at least two--and I believe only two--amendments that will be pending that are germane postcloture to be considered. The first of those is my amendment No. 209. I will speak to that at this point and then will continue the debate after some other business has been conducted. Amendment No. 209 to the substitute is an amendment to the Baucus Finance Committee amendment which has been agreed to by the Senate. I will describe the background of that amendment and then the justification for it. Under current law, small businesses can expense $100,000 of qualified business investments in the first year that the property is placed into service. Because the level is indexed for inflation, the 2007 expensing limit is $112,000. But after 2009, the expensing limit drops back down to $25,000 a year, clearly an insufficient amount. Recognizing this, the Baucus Finance Committee amendment would extend the increased expensing levels through 2010. That is only a 1-year extension. Amendment No. 209 extends it through 2012, which is the same period of time that the work opportunity tax credit has been extended under the Finance Committee amendment. Section 179 of the Tax Code, which allows small businesses to elect to deduct all or part of the cost of certain qualifying property the year that it is placed into service, would work through the year 2012 rather than 2010, as under the Finance bill. We know that this immediate expensing has been critical to supporting economic growth. We, also, know that small businesses account for about 60 percent of the cost that is imposed as a result of the increase in the minimum wage that is in the underlying bill. As a way to try to help small businesses overcome the costs we are imposing on them, we have talked to them. They are pretty unanimous in the view that the one thing we could do that best helps them be able to afford this is to extend the small business expensing under section 179. The reason we need to extend it a longer period of time is because of the certainty they need. When they are planning on making improvements to their business and they know they can expense that when they put that improvement in place, in force, then they will proceed to do what is in the economic best interest of their business. But if their plans are restrained by the Tax Code, then we are not enabling them to fulfill their fullest potential in making the business decisions that create jobs. The key of this particular program is that it is a job creator. That is why almost all of us would like to see this extended as far as we can. I don't think there is any real dispute about that. As I said, the Kyl amendment to the Baucus substitute would simply extend this increased small business expensing through the year 2012, the same extension as is given the work opportunity tax credit. For the sake of illustration, you can see that on this chart, the work opportunity tax credit is extended through the year 2012, and as a result of the Finance Committee bill into 2013. The other expensing provisions or depreciation provisions that were in the Finance Committee bill are only extended through the end of the first quarter of next year, except for section 179, which currently goes through the end of 2009, and the Finance Committee bill takes it through 2010. What this amendment would do is take it through 2012, the same period as the work opportunity tax credit under the Finance Committee bill. The chairman of the committee argues that the small business tax relief package should be balanced between the expensing and depreciation provisions and the work opportunity tax credit. As I noted, that is extended for 5 years, while section 179 is extended for only 1 year. Small business expensing has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. I don't think there is any reason now to treat this issue as a political issue or a partisan issue and to try to put it in competition with the work opportunity tax credit. They can move forward together. That is especially the case because section 179, unlike the work opportunity tax credit, is targeted at small businesses. Not only is expensing limited to $112,000, but current law actually reduces that amount for property that costs over $400,000, which is also indexed. Meaning that section 179 is simply not useful to large businesses that are in the business of purchasing things for far more than $400,000. But we know, in pure dollar terms, the work opportunity tax credit primarily benefits larger businesses. In fact, testimony before the Finance Committee was that 95 percent of the credits go to either C or S corporations. Since the bulk of the cost of imposing the minimum wage is on small businesses, since section 179 expensing is the primary way we can help small businesses, and since the value of the work opportunity tax credit primarily helps the bigger businesses, it seems to us that the proper balance is to extend both of them through 2012, and section 179, under our amendment, would be brought to that point. One more word about the investments that small business makes because this is instructive. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 63 percent of small business owners will make capital improvements over any 6-month period, and this could include acquiring new equipment, buying new vehicles, new furniture, expanding existing facilities, maybe even buying a new facility. They need to acquire new equipment and facilities to expand their businesses and create jobs. That is the point of section 179. It enables job creation. That is probably the best antidote to the cost imposed by increasing the minimum wage. As many experts have pointed out, one of the fallouts from increasing the minimum wage is that some smaller businesses simply hire fewer people. Some even reduce the number of hours their entry-level workers work or even lay people off. The benefit of section 179 that everyone has recognized is it enables the small businesses to grow, to create jobs, and, therefore, the potential downside of increasing the minimum wage is offset, in effect, and never occurs because the jobs are created by virtue of section 179 and other benefits. Everybody recognizes that allowing first-year expensing is what makes it easier for small businesses to make investments. Business income is overstated because we require businesses to depreciate investments over a period of time instead of deducting the entire cost all at once. But the business must buy an entire machine or building all at once, which ties up funds that otherwise would be available to earn income. So allowing the immediate expensing of the $112,000 worth of business investment frees up funds that small business owners can use to grow their businesses, and those owners are likely to reinvest the money back into their business because they are entrepreneurs. This increased business investment benefits the entire economy. It is the job creator. Small business represents 99.7 percent of all employers. It employs over half the private sector employees. They pay 44.3 percent of the total U.S. private payroll. This is a very big factor in our economy. Small businesses generate 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs, according to statistics over the last decade, and create more than 50 percent of nonfarm private gross domestic income. Extending the increased limits through 2012 will provide greater stability for these small business owners. The best answer is to actually make the increases permanent, but that is not what this amendment does. It extends it to the same period of time that the work opportunity tax credit is. Most people would recognize that this is wise, that it is good policy, and that my amendment, therefore, takes us a substantial step in the right direction. The question before was whether the budget would require that there be a separate so-called pay-for, a permanent tax increase that would offset the cost of this temporary tax extension. There have been various types of pay-go since the statutory pay-go was enacted in 1990. The point of order was enacted in 1993. Statutory pay-go, which expired in 2002, was enforced by OMB, but Congress always enacted legislation to avert it. But contrary to popular belief, the Senate has a pay-go rule in effect right now. It was first created in 2003. The current pay-go rule provides a 60-vote point of order against any new mandatory spending or new tax cuts that exceed specified levels. This is called the pay-go scorecard. Those levels are set in the budget resolution, and the current scorecard set in the 2006 budget resolution, which was the last budget agreed to by the House and Senate and the one applicable here, currently allows no unoffset tax cuts or mandatory spending from 2006 to 2010. But it does allow up to $268 billion in offset tax cuts or mandatory spending from 2011 to 2015, without triggering a point of order. There is no point of order against this amendment because of the current scorecard and the way this amendment would work. The problem with any version of pay-go is that the CBO assumes all entitlement programs live forever, regardless of whether a program must be reauthorized. But tax cuts that must be reauthorized are not included in the baseline. Pay-go does not apply to appropriations. So that is why there is no pay-go point of order against this amendment because the Baucus substitute already extends section 179 small business expensing to 2010. It includes the necessary offsets to cover 2010, and our amendment extends that same expensing through 2011 and 2012, years in which the pay-go scorecard has more than sufficient allocation to cover any revenue that Joint Tax projects will not be collected in those years. I think all of the ends are tied up here. This is something that most of us would like to see done. It would help the small businesses that will bear the brunt of the expected passage of the minimum wage increase. We have a way to extend the most useful of the tax deductions, this expensing for small business, through 2012. That does not require any new permanent increases in taxes to offset the cost. It seems to me that this is very wise public policy. It doesn't have to be partisan. It would be good policy for us to extend this. I urge my colleagues, when we have an opportunity to vote on this amendment, to support it, or if there is a motion to table it, to vote against the motion to table. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL. Let me use the last minute of my time, and then I will yield to the leader.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I simply wanted to respond to the point the chairman of the committee just made, which is that this is not offset. The reason there is no pay-go point of order against this amendment is because the Baucus substitute already extends section 179 small business expensing through 2010 and includes the necessary offsets to cover 2010. This amendment merely extends that through 2012, years in which the pay-go scorecard has more than sufficient allocation to cover any revenue that Joint Tax projects would not be collected in those years. That is why there is no point of order and why we believe this is a fiscally responsible way to assist small business.

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, my understanding is that the pending business is amendment No. 115.

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, unless the Senator from Wisconsin wishes to speak, I will proceed. I believe we have about 14 minutes remaining on our side. I would like to use at least some of that time to clear up a couple points that were made earlier in the debate. I am speaking on the amendment No. 209, which is my amendment to extend the period of time that so-called section 179 small business expensing would be effective. Instead of cutting off at 2010, it would be the same period of time that we extended the work opportunity tax credit; namely, 2012. The obvious reason being that businesses would have more time within which to plan these additions or improvements to their business and would be able to count on what the Tax Code treatment would be and, therefore, would be more likely to make the investment and, therefore, create more jobs and, therefore, be able to absorb the cost of the minimum wage that will be imposed by the legislation before us. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 115 and that Senator Specter be added as a cosponsor both to this amendment, No. 209, and to No. 115.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, the Senator from Massachusetts made a couple of statements I need to correct. One was that this amendment would cost $45 billion. I do not know how he arrived at that figure. Even if you add up all of the amendments I have proposed at one time or another on this bill, they don't add up to $45 billion. The amount that this amendment would, in effect, cost to take section 179 through the year 2012 would be about $2.1 billion over 10 years. That is more than absorbed by the authority that we have under the budget from last year, which is $278.6 billion. So there doesn't have to be an additional offset. There doesn't have to be an additional pay- for. The cost for extending section 179--what we are doing with this amendment--is entirely subsumed in the budget we passed last year. That is why it is not subject to a point of order and why a mere majority vote will determine whether it moves forward. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by the way, the minimum wage increase will impose about $5 billion worth of new costs on businesses each and every year. Most of that will be on small businesses. The extension of this relief will benefit those very small businesses that are going to have to absorb this additional cost. When the Senator from Massachusetts said earlier, ``We have debated over the period of the last few days tax breaks for corporate America,'' I want to be very clear, that is not the tax break I am talking about. The tax break for corporate America is the tax break the majority of the Democrats on the Finance Committee have provided in the form of the work opportunity tax credit. Testimony before our committee confirmed that 95 percent, approximately, of the value of the WOTC, work opportunity tax credit, goes to bigger businesses, S and C corporations, because they have the wherewithal to set up the complicated accounting mechanisms for the work opportunity tax credit legislation to actually work. Very few of the small businesses are benefited by that tax relief. But almost all of the small businesses are benefited by the tax relief that I have proposed. So I respectfully correct my colleague from Massachusetts. What I am proposing doesn't benefit the big corporations. That is what is already extended under the bill through the year 2012. What we are doing is extending through the year 2012 these benefits for the small businesses--specifically, the section 179 expensing. How does that work? As I explained this morning, by definition, section 179 allows businesses to write off an amount that is right now $112,000, when they spend that much money on a new piece of equipment or add on their business. If they spend more than $400,000, they cannot use this particular provision. The bottom line is that this is for the small business, it is not for big business. So it is simply incorrect to say that the proposal that is before us now, to be voted on shortly, benefits big corporations. They cannot, by definition, take advantage of this particular provision of the Tax Code. Again, why are we seeking to do this? All of us on the Finance Committee agreed that we needed to provide some tax relief to small businesses because small businesses would bear the brunt of the new expense of the minimum wage. So the committee unanimously extended various provisions of the Tax Code. It extended this section 179 for another year, recognizing its importance. All my amendment does is extend it another 2 years, so that it will conform with the same period of time that the work opportunity tax credit goes to and, thus, provide some balance between the big businesses, which get the work opportunity tax credit relief, and the small businesses, which primarily rely on the section 179 tax relief. Section 179 is probably the most used of the tax provisions because all small businesses can take advantage of it whenever they add value to their particular business. It is for this reason that several organizations have endorsed this proposal of mine and, in fact, have communicated with us that they intend to key vote this amendment. So when you are voting on my amendment, if you vote to table my amendment, you are going against the recommendations of the following groups: National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB; Food Marketing Institute; Printing Industries of America; International Franchise Association; and Society of American Florists. You can see that these are the kinds of businesses that can take advantage of this section of the Tax Code. So anybody who votes to table this amendment, as I said, will be going against the recommendation of these particular groups. I urge my colleagues--this has never been a partisan issue. Section 179 is supported by Democrats and Republicans and Independents. Our committee action was unanimous. There is no reason this has to become a partisan issue. There is no question of pay-for. We already, in the budget from last year, the scorecard, as they call it, have revenue available to offset the modest increase of $2 billion that a 2-year extension would entail in this particular amendment. So I see no reason for anybody to vote against it and, most especially, to table this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to table. Madam President, might I inquire how much time is now available on both sides of this issue?

Mr. KYL

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