Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. KYL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the remarks President Bush delivered yesterday about the war against the radical Islamist terrorists was a historic speech, the clearest statement to date of the nature of the struggle we face. Probably there were two factors that entered the President's decision to give the remarks today: First, the fact that we will soon, next Monday, have the fifth anniversary of the heinous attack of September 11 on the United States of America; second, because of the increasing calls by partisans to abandon part of the conflict--namely, the Iraq front--in this war. It was important for the President to define who the enemy is and to make it clear that the enemy is not terrorism. People in the media have called this the war on terrorism. We could have just as easily called the war in the Pacific and World War II the war on kamikaze terrorism, as kamikaze is a suicide tactic by evil people. The war, then, was against Nazism, Fascism, the imperial Japanese, and later communism. It was not against a tactic. The same thing is true today. It was important for the President to define the nature of the enemy we face in order to be able to adequately confront that enemy. The President made a comparison with a couple of the enemies in World War II. He talked about Adolph Hitler and the fact he was not taken seriously at first. At first, Adolph Hitler was a crazy paper hanger. Then he was greatly underestimated. Eventually, there were those who thought he could be appeased because the world did not want to fight again, with World War I so fresh in everyone's mind. But he did have to be confronted. And the same later with respect to communism. At first it was Uncle Joe Stalin who helped us win World War II. But it became clear, after the Berlin blockade and his explosion of an H bomb, that communism was a clear and present danger for the United States. Eventually, America understood, and the cold war confronted communism, eventually succeeding in defeating that threat. There is a big difference between the Soviets of the Communist era and the radical Islamists. One difference is that the Soviets could be deterred. Radical Islamists are not going to be deterred. There is a particular reason why. The Soviets were rational about life itself. Radical Islamists seek to bend us to their will, to kill us or to die trying. Either way, in their view, they win. I ask my colleagues: What did Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig have to do before they were released in Gaza just a couple of weeks ago? They had to bend to the will of Allah. They had to convert to Islam before they were released. This is the goal of these radical Islamists, as the President explained--to either bend the rest of the world to their will, to kill us or to die trying. We will only win this war if we take the threat seriously. The sooner we commit to victory, the fewer our losses will be. The best strategy is to take the fight to the enemy. The worst strategy is to leave in the middle of a battle, for example, in Iraq. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to win the war if we abdicate the battle. What ally in the war will stand with us if we decide that the fight is too tough? How would that help us influence the mullahs who rule in Iran? I will read from parts of the President's speech to illustrate the clarity with which he described the nature of our enemy, the nature of this conflict, and the absolute necessity that we confront it strongly now in order to save future generations from the scourge of this continuing conflict. The President said: Five years after our nation was attacked, the terrorist danger remains. We're a nation at war. And he said: . . . we've also learned a great deal about the enemy we face . . . We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us--and we need to take their words seriously. And he proceeded to describe, in the terrorists' own words, what they believe, what they hope to accomplish, and how they intend to accomplish it. Listen to these words of the President: The terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001, are men without conscience--but they're not madmen. They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil, but not insane. These al Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni extremists. They're driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of political power. They hope to establish a violent political Utopia across the Middle East, which they call a ``caliphate,'' where all the world would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called the 9/ 11 attacks--in his words--``a great step toward the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous caliphate.'' The President went on to describe that this caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire, and using the words of the terrorist Zawahiri, al-Qaida second in command, declaring that al-Qaida intends to impose its rule ``in every land that was a home for Islam, from Spain to Iraq.'' And he went on to say: The whole world is an open field for us. The President also described what such a world would look like, referring to the situation in Afghanistan before its liberation as exemplifying the rule of these kinds of terrorists: Under the Taliban and al-Qaida, Afghanistan was a nightmare, a land where women were imprisoned in their homes, girls could not go to school, religious police roamed the streets, and women were publicly whipped. In fact, summary executions were held in Kabul's soccer stadium in front of cheering mobs. And Afghanistan was turned into a launching pad for the horrific attacks against America and other parts of the civilized world. The President said: The goal of these Sunni extremists is to remake the entire Muslim world in their radical image. In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialogue with those they call ``infidels''. . . . These radicals have declared their uncompromising hostility to freedom. And the President said: It is foolish to think that you can negotiate with them. The President also quoted from some of the al-Qaida documents that illustrate the precise nature of this threat. One is the al-Qaida charter that was secured by coalition forces searching a terrorist safe house. The charter states: There will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet the enemy halfway. There will be no room for dialogue with them. The President also noted that the goal of al-Qaida is to cause Americans to tire of the conflict, ``hoping that the American people will grow tired of casualties and give up the fight.'' The President said: And they are targeting America's financial centers and economic infrastructure at home, hoping to terrorize us and cause our economy to collapse. He quoted the words of Osama bin Laden, who calls this his ``bleed- until-bankruptcy plan,'' and noted that Osama bin Laden was very impressed with the relatively small investment he had to make to cause such a large amount of damage to the United States and to our economy. The President also noted the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden says al-Qaida intends to ``launch,'' in his words, ``a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.'' I would submit that the evidence of that campaign is there for all to see. The President said: Bin Laden and his allies are absolutely convinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causing our economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent, and lacking in patience and resolve. The President also said that ``they've made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq--the nation bin Laden has declared the `capital of the caliphate.' The President said: Hear the words of bin Laden: ``I now address the whole Islamic nation. Listen and understand. The most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq.'' He calls it ``a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam.'' He says, ``The whole world is watching this war,'' and that it will end in ``victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'' The President noted: For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America--it is the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle will be decided. The President said: Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? And then the President noted that there is a second group of these radical Islamists who, combined with the first, represent the axis of evil that we face in this war, the threat posed by Shia extremists. The President said: The Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous, and just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East. And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjecting its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda. Then the President went on to describe the clear aims of the Iranian regime: wanting to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East. Among the ways in which they intend to achieve their goals is by the creation and supporting of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. The President said: Just as we must take the words of the Sunni extremists seriously, we must take the words of the Shia extremists seriously. He went on to quote the Hezbollah leader, the terrorist Nasrallah, and also the President of Iran, President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, who declared in a speech that some people ask, and I am quoting, ``whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved. I say that this goal is achievable.'' Everyone is aware of Ahmadi-Nejad's threats to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He said: If you do not abandon the path of falsehood, your doomed destiny will be annihilation. He delivered this message to the American people. And I am quoting: If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down. The language is always: Bow down. Surrender to their radical, perverted view of Islam. And now the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons. Imagine if this nation acquires nuclear weapons, a nation that sponsors terrorism around the world, is the chief sponsor of terrorism, according to the U.S. State Department. And were they to provide nuclear weaponry to terrorists, the result is unthinkable. What the President concluded was: The Shia and Sunni extremists represent different faces of the same threat. They draw inspiration from different sources, but both seek to impose a dark vision of violent Islamic radicalism across the Middle East. The President said: And armed with nuclear weapons, they would blackmail the free world, and spread their ideologies of hate, and raise a mortal threat to the American people. If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity, and demand to know why we did not act. The President then went on to reiterate the five basic elements of the strategy he has discussed before. He pointed out that the enemy is a flexible and agile enemy that adapts and changes its ways of dealing with us, and that we have to do the same, and pointed out how we are doing that. In fact, the President said: During the last five years we've learned a lot about this enemy. We've learned that they're cunning and sophisticated. We've witnessed their ability to change their methods and their tactics with deadly speed--even as their murderous obsessions remain unchanging. He also noted--and I think this is important--that one of the things they have accomplished over the last several years is the slaughtering of huge numbers of innocent Muslim men and women around the world. And you have but to look at the daily casualty count in Iraq, where it is primarily violence on other Muslims in Iraq that represents this terrible news we wake up to every morning. The President said, as he has said before: The road ahead is going to be difficult, and it will require more sacrifice. Yet we can have confidence in the outcome, because we've seen freedom conquer tyranny and terror before. I would say that we have a choice to make. We can understand the nature of this conflict and its seriousness and the required sacrifice now or we can come to that realization after we have suffered far too many more casualties and far too much loss in blood and treasure. Eventually the world will join us in this struggle and we will succeed. But the question is, How many have to die? How much loss has to occur before the world wakes to the nature of this threat? I harken back to the days just before World War II as a good lesson in history to remind us that we need to take the words of these evildoers to heart. They just may mean what they say. History has proven that to be the case in the past, and recent history leaves no doubt that this is what they mean today. Next Monday, we will stand on the Capitol steps at 6 o'clock, as we did exactly 5 years before, to demonstrate to the American people that the attacks on America will not deter us from our business or our commitment to protect the American people. When we do that, we need to mean what we say. Our ability to make good on that commitment will depend, first and foremost, on our understanding of the nature of this threat and our ability and willingness to confront it. The President concluded his remarks with these statements. He said: This time, we're confronting them-- Meaning the enemy-- before they gain the capacity to inflict unspeakable damage on the world, and we're confronting their hateful ideology before it . . . takes root. That is the point I was making, that we have a choice today to take this fight to the enemy and win rather than waiting until more damage has been inflicted upon us to understand and appreciate the nature of the threat. The President concluded by saying: This is the great ideological struggle of the 21st century--and it is the calling of our generation. All civilized nations are bound together in this struggle between moderation and extremism. Mr. President, this is the challenge which confronts us. It confronts us as leaders of this country, and it requires of us the discussion, honestly and forthrightly, of the serious nature of this struggle. It will not be won by papering over differences. It will not be won by deciding that the fight is too difficult and that there are places where this struggle is occurring where we just cannot prevail. We cannot send a message to our enemies, let alone to our allies, that we are not up to the struggle, wherever it may break out. The way to win this struggle is to win it. And that is the point the President was making in his remarks yesterday. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to review the President's remarks. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the speech he made yesterday be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are here ostensibly debating a resolution that deals with the Secretary of Defense but, of course, the conversation has devolved into a discussion of the war against the radical Islamists and the battle in Iraq, a battlefront of that war. Let me begin, though, by asking unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks we have printed in the Record a letter from Josh Bolton, of the administration, to the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, that letter goes to one of the points of the resolution that we are ostensibly debating, a resolution which seems to mock the phrase ``stay the course,'' claiming that the current stay- the-course policy has made America less secure. I guess it all depends on what you mean by stay the course because, if you mean by stay the course don't abandon the effort, then of course the administration and the Senate do not want to abandon the effort and therefore do want to stay the course. At least the people on this side of the aisle do not want to abandon the effort. But if it means don't change the way you are doing anything, obviously that is another matter. The problem is, it is a straw man for those on the other side to argue that the administration is not willing to change anything. The letter from Mr. Bolton to the distinguished minority leader will demonstrate the fact that, just as the enemy is agile and changes its tactics, so, too, has the United States changed the way that it deals with the enemy in Iraq. So, yes, stay the course if by that we mean don't abdicate the mission; no, if it means don't ever change the way you operate. The other part of the resolution I found rather odd was the condemnation of Secretary Rumsfeld, which for days now we heard is coming. I was rather bracing for an indictment of the Secretary of Defense who, of course, needs no one to defend him. He is an honorable and effective and totally self-sacrificing public servant who has served the President and the American people well. But I noted that the big indictment is that President Bush needs to change course in Iraq-- undefined how that change in course might operate--to provide a strategy for success--the strategy was announced over and over by the President, reiterated in his speech yesterday--and one indication of a change of course would be to replace the current Secretary of Defense. I suppose it would be. That is a bit of a tautology. But it doesn't suggest that it would do anything or accomplish anything except, perhaps, embarrass the President, perhaps undermine our credibility abroad, perhaps embolden our opponents and raise questions by our allies. That is not a very constructive proposition by our friends on the other side of the aisle. But, on the other hand, not much that they have offered is very constructive. It is easy to criticize, easy to play Monday morning quarterback. It is a little more difficult when you are in the middle of the battle, charged with the responsibility of success. I shudder to think what these Monday morning quarterbacks would have done in World War II or World War I, a day after the landing on D-day or at Iwo Jima--10,000 casualties. Or the Civil War. It occurs to me we would not be here debating as a unified nation today if one of the greatest generals in the history of America, Robert E. Lee, hadn't made a monumental mistake at Gettysburg. The reality is mistakes are made in war and it is very difficult while the war is going on, and before the historians have the context in which to reflect on it, to debate the mistakes, especially when the enemy is listening and certainly our allies and our troops are listening as well. But just to reflect on a couple of these, one comment by one of the Senators was the problem is we are trying to do a war without enough military. A lot of us on this side of the aisle have steadfastly supported a stronger more robust military. Sometimes we don't get a lot of support on the other side of the aisle for that. But the comment was we do need more troops, from a Senator who wants to withdraw our troops. I happen to agree with my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, who has said we need more troops. The best way to do that, at least under current circumstances, is to not withdraw an American soldier for every Iraqi trained but combine the two armies as the Iraqis are trained up in order to go into a place like Baghdad and get control. That is not reducing troops, obviously; that is enhancing the total power there. How do we get more troops if every time we train up an Iraqi an American has to leave? Or we set a timetable for leaving by the end of the year? I am at a loss to understand this notion: Our problem is we need more troops, so let's bring our troops home. I don't get it. Unless, of course, we are not concerned about the outcome--and that is the question. That, unfortunately, is the question that must be in the minds of our allies. It must be in the minds of our enemies when they hear a debate like this and they hear: We need more troops, let's bring our troops home. They must ask: Okay, what does that mean? Does it mean America is in it for winning or does it mean we are going to be leaving, and the vacuum that is created will be an opportunity to move in and do our evil deeds? The President, in his speech yesterday, was very clear about the nature of the enemy, an enemy that sees the Iraq battlefront as a central part of what he called World War III, their attempt to either make us bow down to their will or kill us or, if we succeed, they die trying. It is a win-win for them either way, according to them. The reality is, this is a battle we cannot leave. This is a fight we cannot walk away from. If we are going to win the war against the terrorists, we have to win the battle in Iraq. There is no other way around that proposition. We cannot abdicate Iraq and still hope to win this war against these radical Islamists, at least not without taking horrendous casualties and losses in the meantime until our allies and some in America determine it is worth fighting, that it is a serious enemy, that we have to do whatever it takes to win, and that includes fighting in places such as Iraq. I conclude with this notion, and the Senator from New Hampshire made the point earlier in a very eloquent way. After recounting all of the carping and criticism of what could have been done differently, he asked: Is there no credit for what we have achieved in Afghanistan, a country that was ruled by the Taliban, where women were beaten, where people were taken to the soccer stadium and shot, where little girls could not go to school and on and on, an altogether horrific place? Is there no credit for the fact that the people of Afghanistan are now free? Is there no credit for the fact that a brutal dictator who killed thousands and thousands of his own citizens, gassed many of them to death, killed hundreds of thousands of people in neighboring countries and was prepared to do battle with us, is there no credit for the fact that Saddam Hussein is gone, that his people have now been afforded the opportunity to freely elect their own government, and we are in the process of helping them secure that freedom? Is there no credit for the fact that Qadhafi decided America's will was pretty well demonstrated in Afghanistan, and he was not going to buck that will by continuing his evil way and developing nuclear weapons, so discretion being the better part of valor, he would get on the right side of history and be with us in this war? Is there no credit for any of these achievements? No, no, not when you are discussing the President of the United States, who in some circles has to be vilified in the name of political discourse. This is not the way to conduct this debate. The way to conduct a debate over the strategy and over the course of history is to have a civil discussion that does not focus on an individual in the administration--who, after all, is only one person making the decisions and who has served this country ably--but, rather, on the strategic objectives over the goals. Can anyone doubt what the goals in the war have to be? Can anyone doubt that the goal has to be to retain the ability of the country of Iraq to keep terrorists out and to ensure the safety and security of their own citizens in the future? I don't think there can be any doubt about what the goals ought to be. Yet the President was right yesterday in reiterating those goals because there appear to be some who have lost sight or who have not ever realized the true evil nature of this enemy, who don't quite comprehend what it will take to defeat this enemy, who do not connect the dots to see we cannot walk away from Iraq and still be able to defeat this enemy, the radical Islamist, both the Sunni and the Shia Islamists, the people who would do us evil if we do not stand in that way. If you do not understand the enemy, I suppose it is not hard to conclude that, because the going is getting tough in Iraq, we ought to leave. The people who believe that are very strong, as the President said, maybe quite patriotic but very wrong. It is the terrorist leaders themselves who believe that Iraq is a central battlefield in what we call the Third World War, a war that obviously the United States is leading. With our allies, we need to bring this to a successful conclusion. I quote from the President's speech the words of Osama bin Laden who said: I now address the whole Islamic nation. Listen and understand. The most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. He calls it a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam and concludes that the whole world is watching this war, and it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. In the latter, I think he was correct. We have to make sure that it is his misery and humiliation and the terrorists' misery and humiliation that is the result of the conflict in Iraq and not that of the United States. In order to ensure that, it is incumbent upon us to prosecute this war to a successful conclusion and not leave this difficult battlefield prematurely--in the process, by the way, support those who are working very hard on our behalf, not denigrate them. It is fine to show the loyalty and the gratitude to our troops that the resolution does, and which I do, but it is also important to show that same kind of gratitude to other people who are trying very hard to protect the American people. That includes the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. Exhibit 1 Response from the Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to a Democratic Letter September 5, 2006. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf. A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks--political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won. Your letter recites four elements of a proposed ``new direction'' in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well- established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided. First, you propose ``transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection.'' That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army--and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago--and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counterterrorism training and operations--which is the most demanding task facing our troops--tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror. Second, your letter proposes ``working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources.'' You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups. Third, your letter calls for ``convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.'' The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq--all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it. Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region. On the fourth element of your proposed ``new direction,'' however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the ``phased redeployment'' you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a ``quick reaction force'' to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad). Regardless of the specifics you envision by ``phased redeployment,'' any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America's security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This ``new direction'' would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory--and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region. Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree. Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President's vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President. We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror. Sincerely, Joshua B. Bolten, Chief of Staff.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Ensign, Feinstein and Reid to introduce the Lower Colorado River Multi- Species Conservation Program Act. This bipartisan legislation is designed to protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the lower Colorado River and to provide assurances to the affected water and power agencies of Arizona, California, and Nevada that their river operations may continue upon compliance with the underlying program. The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, otherwise known as the MSCP, is a comprehensive, cooperative effort among 50 Federal and non-Federal entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada whose purposes are to: 1. protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations; 2. protect threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act; and 3. prevent the listing of additional species on the lower Colorado River. To accomplish these goals, the MSCP will create more than 8,100 acres of riparian, marsh, and backwater habitat and implement additional measures to protect 26 endangered, threatened and sensitive species. The program covers approximately 400 miles, including the full-pool elevations of Lake Mead to the United States-Mexico Southerly International Boundary. The program costs will be spread over 50 years, and split 50/50 between the Federal Government and the non- Federal entities covered by MSCP. Arizona and Nevada will each bear 25 percent of the non-Federal costs and California will bear 50 percent of the non-Federal costs. Although implementation of the program began in April 2005 under the U.S. Department of the Interior's existing authority, legislation is needed to protect the substantial financial commitments that the non- Federal parties are making to species protection. To that end, the bill: 1. expressly authorizes appropriations to cover the Federal share of the program costs; 2. directs the Secretary of the Interior to manage and implement the MSCP in accordance with the underlying program documents; and 3. provides a waiver of sovereign immunity to allow the non-Federal parties to enforce, if necessary, the underlying program documents. The waiver, however, does not allow an action to be brought against the United States for money damages. While some minor issues remain regarding the continuity of the program documents, we have every confidence that these issues will be resolved as the legislation progresses. In summary, this bill will ensure the certainty of existing river water and power operations while at the same time conserving and helping the recovery of endangered species on the lower Colorado River. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Ensign, Feinstein and Reid to introduce the Lower Colorado River Multi- Species Conservation Program Act. This bipartisan legislation is designed to protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the lower Colorado River and to provide assurances to the affected water and power agencies of Arizona, California, and Nevada that their river operations may continue upon compliance with the underlying program. The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, otherwise known as the MSCP, is a comprehensive, cooperative effort among 50 Federal and non-Federal entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada whose purposes are to: 1. protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations; 2. protect threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act; and 3. prevent the listing of additional species on the lower Colorado River. To accomplish these goals, the MSCP will create more than 8,100 acres of riparian, marsh, and backwater habitat and implement additional measures to protect 26 endangered, threatened and sensitive species. The program covers approximately 400 miles, including the full-pool elevations of Lake Mead to the United States-Mexico Southerly International Boundary. The program costs will be spread over 50 years, and split 50/50 between the Federal Government and the non- Federal entities covered by MSCP. Arizona and Nevada will each bear 25 percent of the non-Federal costs and California will bear 50 percent of the non-Federal costs. Although implementation of the program began in April 2005 under the U.S. Department of the Interior's existing authority, legislation is needed to protect the substantial financial commitments that the non- Federal parties are making to species protection. To that end, the bill: 1. expressly authorizes appropriations to cover the Federal share of the program costs; 2. directs the Secretary of the Interior to manage and implement the MSCP in accordance with the underlying program documents; and 3. provides a waiver of sovereign immunity to allow the non-Federal parties to enforce, if necessary, the underlying program documents. The waiver, however, does not allow an action to be brought against the United States for money damages. While some minor issues remain regarding the continuity of the program documents, we have every confidence that these issues will be resolved as the legislation progresses. In summary, this bill will ensure the certainty of existing river water and power operations while at the same time conserving and helping the recovery of endangered species on the lower Colorado River. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 4842. I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be laid aside for the purpose of this amendment.

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am happy to explain this amendment. This amendment deals with royalty relief and requires that the Secretary of the Interior put a price threshold on any royalty relief in the future and confirms his authority to have done so in the past.

Mr. KYL. As I said, Mr. President, I am prepared to vote and will not call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden not be shown as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I notify my colleagues that this is a small piece of an amendment that yesterday was objected to, properly, under the rules, but I believe there could be unanimous consent that this piece would be permitted to proceed. I have given copies of the amendment to Senators Inouye and Stevens, and Senator Domenici has approved it. Senator Bingaman has a copy. It deals with royalty relief. We discussed this yesterday. Really the controversial amendment, as I say, has been objected to. I hope my colleagues will agree to allow this to be either voice voted or approved in some other way. I don't intend to take any more time on it. Certainly, we would leave time for people to take a look at it if they want to, to see if there is an issue with it, and if they do have an issue that they see me about it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order, and I call up amendment No. 4842, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ensign be added as a cosponsor and indicate that I am ready to vote, and I do not call for a rollcall vote or the yeas and nays at this time.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I am not sure what the status is now. Is the regular order to take the vote on amendment No. 4842?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington had printed in the Record a letter from an official in the State of Washington. In response and in refutation of the point of that letter, I will read from a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Employment Standards for the U.S. Department of Labor, Victoria Lipnick. Mr. President, this letter is dated August 2. It says, among other things: Were this passed into law, the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor would read section 402 as protecting the current minimum wages of the tipped employees in the seven states that now exclude tipped employees' tips from being considered as wages. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with what we understand to be the intent of the Congress and Fair Labor Standards Act which the WHD enforces. The bottom line of this legislation, as has been said, is it will increase the standards of living and decrease the cost of dying. I urge my colleagues to support moving forward with it.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senator from North Dakota gave a speech on the Senate floor on what he calls the wall of debt. My colleague said, ``We have cut revenue, cut revenue, cut revenue.'' Clearly, he misunderstands both the rationale and the economic effect of the tax cuts. I would like to take a few moments today to clear up several misconceptions. My colleagues know full well that the Senator's wall of debt is built of increased spending and runaway entitlement costs. Twenty years ago, entitlements accounted for 45 percent of the budget; soon, they will exceed 60 percent. Medicare alone is growing by almost 10 percent a year. In 30 years, the three big entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--if left unchanged, will consume the entire Federal budget, leaving no money for border security or education or any other necessary program. Our problem is not that Americans are undertaxed; our problem is that entitlement spending has run amok. In characterizing the tax relief provided in recent years, we do better to call it a ``Foundation for Economic Growth.'' When Congress cuts tax rates, it leaves money in the private economy, where it can be used more efficiently. Being taxed at lower rates, Americans have more incentive to work, save, and invest, which fosters economic growth. Tax rate cuts implemented by Republicans have kept America competitive by leaving $1.1 trillion in the American economy, where it has given us more than 4 years of uninterrupted economic growth. To illustrate the effects that low tax rates can have on the economy, I recommend to my colleagues a study conducted by Dr. Edward Prescott, a Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at Arizona State University. Dr. Prescott's study reveals an interesting fact. Based on labor marker statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Americans aged 15 to 64 worked 50 percent more than their European counterparts in France, Germany, and Italy. Fifty percent more. But this difference in output has not always been so. Two decades ago, France's labor supply, as measured by hours worked per employee, exceeded the American labor supply, as did several other European nations. Why is this? According to Dr. Prescott, this discrepancy in the labor market is attributable to taxes. When you lower the rates on individuals, people work harder and greater productivity results. As the United States lowered its marginal tax rates, Americans had a greater incentive to work hard, work longer, and be more productive, relative to the European nations, which kept higher tax rates. The results of Dr. Prescott's study are telling. Ultimately, a country must establish an efficient tax system with low tax rates to achieve maximum economic productivity. This is exactly what this Republican Congress has tried to accomplish: a tax system that keeps as much money as possible in the private economy, with individuals and businesses. In contrast, Democrats seem to want to keep as much taxpayer money in Washington as possible. If my colleague from North Dakota doesn't believe that our tax and economic policies are working, let me quote some figures from the Office of Management and Budget's Mid-Session Review, released on July 11. These figures demonstrate that our tax and economic policies are fostering economic growth in the private economy and that all of this new economic growth is helping to bring down the budget deficit. From 2005 to 2006, Federal receipts are projected to grow by 11 percent, $246 billion, more than twice as fast as the economy itself. Since the tax relief was fully implemented in 2003, tax receipts have increased by 34.6 percent. The economy has grown for 18 consecutive quarters. The economy has created over 5.4 million jobs since August 2003. This is more than Japan and the 25 nations of Europe combined. That is combined. The unemployment rate of 4.6 percent is lower than the average of the last four decades. There have been 34 months of consecutive job growth. Progrowth policies and tax receipts will allow the deficit to be cut in half by 2008, a year ahead of the President's schedule. The projected budget deficit for 2006 has fallen from 3.2 percent of gross domestic product to 2.3 percent of GDP--and measuring our deficit in relation to the size of the American economy gives the most accurate assessment of how big or small the deficit is relative to other times in our history. The projected deficit of 2.3 percent of GDP registers at the 40-year average and is lower than the deficits in 17 of the last 25 years. Although our economy has made many steps in the right direction, we ought not be content to stop here. My colleagues and I will continue to work to reduce Government spending and to make the tax cuts permanent. The issue that prompted this debate over the deficit, to be clear about it, is not how to reform entitlements. It is legislation the Senate will consider later this week to reform the estate tax. On this, as well, my colleagues labor under some misconceptions. I want to take a moment to explain to them how many people will actually benefit from this legislation and to debunk some of the myths we are hearing about the cost. If Congress fails to reform the estate tax, the exemption amount will revert to $1 million and the rate will be 55 percent in 2011. According to an analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of Senator Baucus, in that year, 127,000 estates would be subject to the death tax--meaning that 127,000 estates would have a value of $1 million or more in 2011. But if Congress approves estate tax reform, at least 115,000 estates each and every year that would otherwise be subject to the tax--estates that are valued over $1 million, but less than $5 million--will be spared from this tax on productivity, once the reform proposal is fully effective in the year 2015. Under the proposal the Senate will consider later this week, we will be left with about 11,500 estates each and every year that will still be subject to the death tax. The official Joint Committee on Taxation estimate for the cost of death tax reform is $267.6 billion over 10 years. Some of my colleagues have used incorrect information generated by liberal interest groups to argue that this underestimates the cost of the proposal, since it does not begin until 2010 and is not fully phased in until 2015. Thus, they claim that the cost of the death tax reform would be $808 billion over the 2012 to 2021 timeframe. They claim that it would cost $1 trillion over the same period ``when the associated increases in interest payments on the debt are included.'' There are several reasons this logic is faulty. First, Joint Tax has estimated that the proposal will cost $39.186 billion in 2012--the first year of the bogus 10-year $808 billion estimate. So if you assume that it will cost that amount, plus an increase for economic growth, each year thereafter, it could not possibly add up to $808 billion for that 10-year period. Using actual Joint Tax estimates--the estimates we are required to use around here--you can see that once the proposal is phased in, the annual cost will increase by roughly $5 billion as a result of economic growth. Thus, using actual JCT estimates through 2016 and then assuming that the cost will increase by $5 billion each year, the total cost between 2012 and 2021 would be around $627 billion, not $808 billion. Second, JCT does not produce estimates further ahead than 10 years because anything beyond that range is thought to be too speculative to be even close to accurate. We simply cannot predict how much revenue the proposed changes will bring into the Government's coffers that far down the road. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax have had enough trouble accurately estimating revenue collections one year out, let alone 10. For example, reducing the long-term capital gains tax in 2003, as estimated by the budgeteers at the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, would cost $27 billion in 2004. It actually brought in $26 billion that year. If official estimators have difficulty producing accurate revenue estimates in the short-term, we should heed their warnings about not betting the farm on estimates that go beyond 10 years. Finally, as I said, Joint Tax is the official revenue-estimating body of Congress. Whether we like their estimates or not, at the end of the day we all know that is the estimate we all must rely on. I hope these facts will bring a little perspective to the debate we are having over the deficit, the effect tax cuts have on the economy and, more to the point this week, the debate over what is really a moderate and responsible proposal to reform the death tax--a proposal that deserves broad, bipartisan support.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe what this amendment does. We will have a unanimous consent request later today to deal with this amendment in the most expeditious way. I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Stevens and his staff and Senator Domenici in helping to work out how we deal with this particular amendment. This amendment deals with some unfinished business before the Senate. As we will recall, yesterday the Senate overwhelming passed S. 3711, which is the Gulf of Mexico Security Act of 2006. This bill would open new areas off the gulf to oil and gas exploration and development. S. 3711, which I voted for, is an important first step in providing our energy independence and reducing energy prices for American consumers. Once again, it raises a matter of concern: a history of lapses and mistakes in royalty collection and payments for oil and gas production under deepwater leases. It also underscores the prospect that future payments will go uncollected due to royalty provisions that are still on the books. We must step up and deal with this unfinished business of royalty reform. That is why Senator Wyden and I are offering this amendment today. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden who has been working with me on a bipartisan basis on this issue, along with Senator DeWine, who is an original cosponsor of this royalty reform legislation, S. 3760, and Senators Lieberman, Feinstein, Cantwell, and Salazar. There are three important aspects of the royalty program that need fixing. First, we need to deal with the mistakes that were committed by the Clinton administration in 1998 and 1999. In those years, the Department of the Interior, through the Mineral Management Service, issued leases that did not include price thresholds. That is a big deal. Energy prices have skyrocketed, and without price thresholds to trigger payment for royalties, the U.S. Government and the American people will not see a dime from these leases. The GAO estimated that this mistake could cost the taxpayers at least $7 billion in lost revenues to the U.S. Treasury. Second, we need to deal with leases that were issued in 1996, 1997, and 2000 that included price thresholds in the lease terms but which are being challenged. A few of the oil and gas companies who signed leases in those years have refused to pay royalties on production even though the thresholds have been exceeded. One of the companies has sued the Department of the Interior, arguing that Interior does not have the authority to establish price thresholds or any leases issued between 1996 and 2000. If the lawsuit is successful, this could have significant implications for royalties already collected. The Federal Government would likely be required to refund approximately $525 million in royalties paid by the industry and be precluded from collecting between $18 billion and $28 billion over the next 5 years. Third, we need to deal with new leases that have royalty relief in the lease terms. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress reinstitutes royalty relief on production in the deep waters but did not require the Department of Interior to put price thresholds in new leases that include royalty relief. The 1998 and 1999 leases demonstrate that the Interior Department can't be trusted to do this on its own, and we cannot afford another $7 billion mistake. Let me explain how the amendment fixes these three problems. Let's take the 1998 and 1999 leases first, since they are the most controversial. In the context of the fiscal year 2007 Interior appropriations bill, there have been efforts to address this problem by Senator Gregg, Senator Domenici, and Senator Feinstein. This amendment today builds on those efforts. In our approach, we try to get companies to do the right thing by giving them a choice: Keep your existing leases royalty free but be barred from bidding on new leases or renegotiate in good faith with the Federal Government and retain your eligibility to bid on new leases in the future. The major difference in our amendment is that we provide time to renegotiate. Every company that wants to come to the table has a full year from the date of enactment of this Act to reach agreement. One year is more than enough time to address any concerns that need to be explored and worked out. I am told many of the companies holding leases from 1998 and 1999 are already renegotiating those leases. I applaud the efforts of those companies. However, Congress cannot stand by and watch consumers pay record prices at the pump knowing that American taxpayers are not getting fairly compensated for the oil and gas extracted from public land. We need to deal with this problem. Incidentally, I note that Senator Domenici has inserted in a separate appropriations bill an amendment that deals with this problem, hopefully, over the course of the next year. What Senator Wyden and I are saying is let the process that Senator Domenici has begun have an opportunity to work. We hope it does work. But in the event that it does not work after a year, our amendment kicks in to, in effect, force a solution. The other two fixes are less controversial and probably in the future actually even more important. Let's turn to the leases first issued between 1996 and 2000 and the Secretary's authority to impose price thresholds limiting royalty relief when oil and gas prices are high. The amendment we are offering simply reaffirms that Congress intended the Secretary to have the authority to vary the suspension of royalties based on the price of production in all leases subject to the deepwater royalty relief action. The language is exactly the same as Senator Domenici offered on another bill. After all, the whole point of royalty relief was to provide companies that undertook high-risk investments in deep water specific volumes of royalty-free production to help cover a portion of their capital costs before starting to pay royalties. It was not to pad the pocketbooks of the oil and gas companies at the expense of the American taxpayer. Price thresholds are the mechanism that ensures the companies do not benefit from both high market prices and royalty-free volumes. Finally, Congress needs to require that new oil and gas deepwater leases that the Federal Government issues include price thresholds. This seems like a no-brainer, but right now there is no requirement that price thresholds be included in leases that have royalty relief. The language says ``may,'' not ``shall.'' Our amendment will say ``shall.'' It is a one-word change that directs the Secretary of Interior to include price thresholds in all new leases. This is an important action to ensure that the Interior Department collects royalties on the American people's energy resources at times when oil and gas prices warrant it. I am hoping that as we debate this important Defense bill we can do the right thing and fix this problem. We are talking about a program that accounts for 30 percent of the oil and 23 percent of the natural gas produced domestically and is a major source of revenue for the Federal Government. According to the Mineral Management Service, Federal revenues from offshore leases are estimated at $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2005. Of the $6.3 billion in revenue for fiscal year $2005, $5.5 billion was from royalties. Securing royalty receipts is important. I recognize this amendment may be deemed legislating on an appropriations bill, but my colleagues and I have tried to go the traditional route up to this point to no avail. This problem is too important to ignore. We are running out of time. We are willing to submit this amendment to a 60-vote threshold. I look forward to working with Senator Domenici to work an agreement to that effect soon. As President Bush and the oil and gas companies have said, we don't need these additional incentives to explore and develop oil and gas at current prices. Let's give the American taxpayer fair compensation for the oil and gas that is extracted from public lands. I hope my colleagues will agree to our amendment. I note, in passing, that the score of this, according to CBO, is a $9 billion revenue gain to the Treasury. This is one of those few times when we are actually going to be able to help the Treasury rather than take some money from it. I conclude by thanking my colleague from Oregon. The Senator from Oregon and I have worked in a bipartisan way now for several weeks. We have come to a good resolution of the issue that our colleagues should be able to support. Senator Wyden is seeking recognition, and I will let him comment at this point.

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I am happy to.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate that. We had testimony before the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, which I chair and on which Senator Feinstein is the ranking member, about what the results of that fencing in San Diego have meant--on both sides of the border. The testimony was that it has reduced crime on both sides of the border. The people in Mexico are very pleased because the gangs and the coyotes that used to gather together before they would try to bring their load of illegal immigrants across the boarder--preying on them, stealing from them, robbing them, beating them, and committing other crimes against them--that whole milieu has ended because the fencing has made it impossible to cross, so the coyotes have gone to other places to try to take their loads across the border. They are no longer congregating and hanging out in that area in Tijuana and south of the San Diego area, and as a result, on both sides of the border, crime has gone down dramatically. The environment has improved dramatically because you don't have these thousands and thousands of people crossing, cutting all these trails, leaving their garbage behind. In fact, I am told nobody has actually gotten across the fencing in that entire sector. I don't have the statistics off the top of my head here, but the testimony before our subcommittee was dramatic in terms of the number of apprehensions before the fencing and the number of apprehensions afterward. I am proud that I was a sponsor, along with Senator Feinstein, of the fencing in that area which has made such a dramatic difference there. As I said in the Judiciary Committee, when I got the authority to add fencing in Arizona, a lot of those folks who were crossing in California are now trying to do it in Arizona. Wherever that traffic is now attempting to cross the border, we need to provide the Border Patrol with all the tools it needs to get the job done, and that includes a substantial amount of fencing.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I wish to compliment our colleague. I know the Senator from Georgia wishes to speak so I will simply say this: Senator Cornyn and I proposed something rather radical here and that is that we actually put our money where our mouth is. That is to say, all the things we authorized, all the things the President requested to make sure we can secure the border, we actually fund so we can get the job done. That is what this amendment does. It basically takes the difference between what we said we want to do and what we fund and closes the gap so we fund it all. It is an important amendment to ensure that we can secure the border first as part of a comprehensive immigration reform. I appreciate the work my colleague Senator Cornyn has done. I am proud to cosponsor it. I yield the floor.