Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in the days ahead, this Congress and the President of the United States face a choice on the critical question of funding our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a choice between brinksmanship and statesmanship, a choice between continuing to stalemate, largely along partisan lines, or uniting across partisan lines in support of our troops. We all know what our most important responsibility is. Our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are looking to us. They need the funding that only we in Congress can provide them. The money is running out. I understand that many in this Chamber saw the supplemental appropriations bill as an opportunity to force a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and that many of us argued vigorously against the amendments that attempted to do that. Each side has now had an opportunity to make its case. The result is clear: There are not enough votes in Congress to enact a mandatory date for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. The time for having debates, therefore, and sending messages on this troop funding bill should be over. It is now time to get our troops the equipment, the training, the supplies they need--and without delay. We in this Chamber have a responsibility to make certain that no matter what disagreements and differences we have here in Washington, our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan are not caught in the political crossfire. Only a couple months ago, this Senate confirmed the new commander to implement a new strategy in Iraq, GEN David Petraeus. That new strategy is now being implemented, and it is achieving some encouraging, if early, signs of success. Indeed, progress has been won, even though the full complement of troops has not yet arrived in Iraq. Yet now many in Congress would pull the plug on this new strategy and thwart the work of our troops before they are given a fair chance to succeed. I am aware public opinion has turned against the war in Iraq. The American people are deeply frustrated by the multiplicity of mistakes and errors that have been made. Progress has been too slow. The savagery of our enemy, which the American people witness on television every night, has been demoralizing. Many simply want to leave and wash our hands of what they perceive as a mess--a deadly mess. But leadership requires sometimes that we defy public opinion if that is what is necessary to do what is right for our country. In fact, at a time such as this, we are required to do what each of us believes is right, and that might not be what is popular. What is right, I firmly believe, is that we cannot allow our Nation to be defeated in Iraq by the same terrorist enemy with which we are now engaged in worldwide conflict. The global war on terrorism which we are waging is a worldwide struggle against a barbaric totalitarian foe that is al-Qaida. And today, it is al-Qaida that we are fighting in Iraq. Al-Qaida itself has declared Iraq to be the central front of their larger war against our way of life. So all of us who are privileged to serve this great country in positions of leadership have a very serious choice to make. Our judgment can be guided by the public opinion polls, and we can withdraw in defeat. We can rationalize our action with reassuring but, I believe, falsely hopeful words such as ``redeployment.'' No matter what we say, our enemy will know that America's will has been broken by the barbarity of their blood lust, the very barbarity we declare we are fighting but from which we would actually be running. My main point is this: Now is not the time for delay, for prolonged legislative posturing and bargaining over this supplemental appropriations bill. It is the time to do our duty, to fund our troops, stand by our allies, and do everything we can to help them win the war against al-Qaida in Iraq, rather than inventing new ways to vent our frustration with the war in Iraq or with the President of the United States, by handcuffing General Petraeus and undermining his strategy. Let us give him and his troops our support as they and their Iraqi allies fight to win for us. Thank you. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to encourage President Bush to go ahead and veto the supplemental appropriations bill that Congress has sent him this afternoon because of the language in that bill on Iraq that I consider to be bad for our troops and dangerous for our country. The legislation that Congress has passed, in my opinion, represents the worst of all worlds. As I have said before, if people feel the war in Iraq is lost, or if people feel it is not lost but not worth fighting for, then what they ought to do is act to end the war. This legislation would do no such thing. It would not end the war in Iraq. It will not require the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. It will not cut off funding for the war in Iraq. On the contrary, what this legislation proposes to do is something far worse. It would handcuff our soldiers with an inflexible and arbitrary set of restrictions--restrictions that would take life-and- death decisions about how, when, and where our troops can fight away from those troops and their commanders. It would substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our military commanders on the ground. That is wrong. What is more, this legislation will impose on our soldiers in Iraq a binding deadline of October 1, 2007--5 months from today--to begin withdrawal. That withdrawal would be required to begin regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of our military leaders, regardless of the opinions of our allies in the region--in short, regardless of reality--on October 1, 2007. This is a deadline as arbitrary as it is inflexible. It is a deadline for defeat--defeat for America and a defeat for the hopes of the majority of the Iraqi people for a better, freer future. I know we have heard from some supporters of this legislation that by ordering a withdrawal we will encourage the Iraqis to make political compromises. Where is the evidence of this? According to the legislation this Congress has now sent to the President, the withdrawal must begin regardless of what the Iraqi Government does. Where, then, is the incentive for the Iraqis to reconcile? On the contrary, there is every reason to conclude this legislation will have exactly the opposite effect that its sponsors claim for it. Listen to the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which has been saluted by Members of this Chamber on both sides of the question of what to do now in Iraq. That latest National Intelligence Estimate predicted that a withdrawal of American troops in the months ahead would ``almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian violence, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation.'' How do the supporters of this legislation explain that National Intelligence Estimate? For that matter, how do they justify this legislation, in light of what we all heard directly from GEN David Petraeus, the commander of our forces in Iraq, when we spoke with him and he spoke with us last week? General Petraeus told us very clearly that we have achieved progress since our new strategy in Iraq--the so-called surge--began. Consider the situation in Anbar Province to the West of Baghdad, which has dramatically improved. That has been documented not by representatives of the administration or people who support the current policy but on the front pages of the New York Times and USA Today in the last few days. At a moment when Sunnis in Anbar are finally helping us in targeting al-Qaida terrorists, this legislation would require us to abandon them. Madam President, what message are we sending to our friends and our foes with this ill-advised legislation? We have heard from some that we need to abandon Iraq because it is not part of the war on terror. But here again, listen to General Petraeus, who is on the ground, one of the most outstanding generals of our military that I have met since I have been a Senator, confirmed unanimously by the Senate a short while ago. Here is what General Petraeus warned us: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign against us. Let me repeat that. General Petraeus said: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign against us. If we withdraw, as this legislation would require us to begin to do, al-Qaida wins--the same al-Qaida that attacked America on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocents, the same al-Qaida that intends to attack us again, the same al-Qaida that has made very clear to us what its plans for domination and control of large sectors of the world are. Madam President, the violence we are seeing in Iraq today, the suicide bombings in Baghdad, the chemical weapons attacks in Anbar Province, the targeted assassinations of Iraq's leaders--these are all primarily the work of al-Qaida. So the big question, then, for me--and I ask my colleagues to consider it--is whether we respond to al-Qaida's terrorism by pulling out, as it hopes we do, and as this legislation would require us to do--abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own American security, to the very people responsible for the terrible atrocities and suicide bombings we see in Iraq today. The alternative to pulling out is standing up and fighting. That is what we are doing now in Iraq and doing with some success in Baghdad and Anbar Province. Rather than undermining General Petraeus and handing al-Qaida a victory, Congress should take swift and responsible action to get General Petraeus and our troops in the field the support they need to prevail. The Iraq war is not lost. But if this supplemental became law, it would be lost and America would suffer the consequences of that defeat for generations. President Bush, veto this bill. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce bipartisan legislation that I believe is the breakthrough we have been searching for to bring House voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia, who have historically been denied this fundamental birthright. I am proud to join with, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Tom Davis, and the many others from both parties and both houses who have worked without rest to remedy the disenfranchisement of District residents since the capital was established in Washington in 1800. I especially want to thank my friend Senator Hatch for his influential support of this voting rights proposal, which would bring to an end a gross inconsistency with the founding principles of our Nation. Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to finally bestow upon the citizens of the District of Columbia the civic entitlement every other tax-paying American citizen enjoys no matter where he or she resides, democracy's most essential right, voting representation in Congress. The bill is simple. It would increase the number of voting representatives in the House from 435 to 437 by providing the District with a voting representative and by adding another congressional seat for Utah, the next State in line to increase its representation based on the 2000 Census. Working cooperatively in the spirit of service to the people of Washington, DC, and Utah, Congresswoman Norton and Congressman Davis shepherded a similar proposal through the House Government Reform Committee on March 13 by a vote of 24-5. The full House approved the measure April 20 by a vote of 241-177, a historic day unlike any other since 1978 when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give District residents voting rights in the House and Senate. Of course, that amendment came to naught when too few States ratified it. The people of this city have waited far too long for this right. They have been the direct target of terrorist attacks, and yet they have no representative to vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security. Citizens of Washington, DC, pay income taxes just like everyone else. In fact, they pay more: Per capita, District residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have no voice in how high those taxes will be or how they will be spent. The District is also the only jurisdiction in the country that must seek congressional approval, through the appropriations process, before spending locally-generated tax dollars. When Congress fails to pass appropriations bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, the District's budget is essentially frozen. And yet DC has no say in that appropriations process. DC residents fight and die for our democracy but they cannot participate fully in it. I ask you, how can we effectively promote democracy abroad while denying it to hundreds of thousands of citizens in our Nation's Capital? There is no good reason why DC residents have been denied congressional representation. In 1800, when the nation's capital was established as the District of Columbia, an oversight left the area's residents without congressional representation. Maryland and Virginia ceded land for the capitol in 1788 and 1789, respectively, but it took another 10 years for Congress to establish the District of Columbia. In the interim, residents continued to vote either in Maryland or Virginia, but Congress withdrew those voting rights once the District was founded. Unfortunately, apparently by omission, Congress neglected to establish new voting rights for the citizens of the new district. The right to be counted, to have your voice heard by your government is central to a functioning democracy and fundamental to a free society. If we are willing to sacrifice our young men and women in the name of freedom, we must be willing to protect their freedoms as well. This legislation would do just that. In 2002, 10 cosponsors and I introduced the No Taxation without Representation Act. I held a hearing on the bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I then chaired. It was the first hearing in Congress on DC voting rights since 1994. We reported the bill out of committee, but the Senate never took action on it. Today, the tide has changed. Members from both parties have come together to find a solution to break the stalemates of the past that have denied DC residents equal representation in Congress. The State of Utah has united in favor of a fourth congressional seat, and Senator Hatch has lent his considerable support to this effort. Mr. President, this legislation represents an uncommon victory for fairness and a rare but hopefully increasingly more common example of what we can do if we work together to accomplish our mutual goals. The essence of our work in the legislative branch is compromise, and the compromise reached by Senator Hatch and I will bring partial voting representation to the District while ensuring Utah receives the additional representation it is due. I know there are those who believe this bill is unconstitutional. But the District clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to legislate ``in all cases whatsoever'' pertaining to the District, provides ample authority for the legislative branch to give DC residents voting rights. Mr. President, this is our moment to do right here at home, just as we have done throughout our history for our democratic allies abroad. By giving the citizens of the District of Columbia a vote in the House, we will ensure not only that their voices will finally be heard. We will be following the imperative of our history and moral values. The Framers of our Constitution in effect placed with Congress the solemn responsibility of assuring that the rights of DC citizens would be protected in the future, just as it is our responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens throughout this great country. Congress has failed to meet this obligation for more than 200 years, and I am not prepared to make DC citizens wait another 200 years. Mr. President, the tax-paying citizens of the District of Columbia have been without congressional voting representation for too long. The House has acted. Now it is time for the Senate to act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hatch and me in support of this essential legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce bipartisan legislation that I believe is the breakthrough we have been searching for to bring House voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia, who have historically been denied this fundamental birthright. I am proud to join with, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Tom Davis, and the many others from both parties and both houses who have worked without rest to remedy the disenfranchisement of District residents since the capital was established in Washington in 1800. I especially want to thank my friend Senator Hatch for his influential support of this voting rights proposal, which would bring to an end a gross inconsistency with the founding principles of our Nation. Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to finally bestow upon the citizens of the District of Columbia the civic entitlement every other tax-paying American citizen enjoys no matter where he or she resides, democracy's most essential right, voting representation in Congress. The bill is simple. It would increase the number of voting representatives in the House from 435 to 437 by providing the District with a voting representative and by adding another congressional seat for Utah, the next State in line to increase its representation based on the 2000 Census. Working cooperatively in the spirit of service to the people of Washington, DC, and Utah, Congresswoman Norton and Congressman Davis shepherded a similar proposal through the House Government Reform Committee on March 13 by a vote of 24-5. The full House approved the measure April 20 by a vote of 241-177, a historic day unlike any other since 1978 when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give District residents voting rights in the House and Senate. Of course, that amendment came to naught when too few States ratified it. The people of this city have waited far too long for this right. They have been the direct target of terrorist attacks, and yet they have no representative to vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security. Citizens of Washington, DC, pay income taxes just like everyone else. In fact, they pay more: Per capita, District residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have no voice in how high those taxes will be or how they will be spent. The District is also the only jurisdiction in the country that must seek congressional approval, through the appropriations process, before spending locally-generated tax dollars. When Congress fails to pass appropriations bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, the District's budget is essentially frozen. And yet DC has no say in that appropriations process. DC residents fight and die for our democracy but they cannot participate fully in it. I ask you, how can we effectively promote democracy abroad while denying it to hundreds of thousands of citizens in our Nation's Capital? There is no good reason why DC residents have been denied congressional representation. In 1800, when the nation's capital was established as the District of Columbia, an oversight left the area's residents without congressional representation. Maryland and Virginia ceded land for the capitol in 1788 and 1789, respectively, but it took another 10 years for Congress to establish the District of Columbia. In the interim, residents continued to vote either in Maryland or Virginia, but Congress withdrew those voting rights once the District was founded. Unfortunately, apparently by omission, Congress neglected to establish new voting rights for the citizens of the new district. The right to be counted, to have your voice heard by your government is central to a functioning democracy and fundamental to a free society. If we are willing to sacrifice our young men and women in the name of freedom, we must be willing to protect their freedoms as well. This legislation would do just that. In 2002, 10 cosponsors and I introduced the No Taxation without Representation Act. I held a hearing on the bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I then chaired. It was the first hearing in Congress on DC voting rights since 1994. We reported the bill out of committee, but the Senate never took action on it. Today, the tide has changed. Members from both parties have come together to find a solution to break the stalemates of the past that have denied DC residents equal representation in Congress. The State of Utah has united in favor of a fourth congressional seat, and Senator Hatch has lent his considerable support to this effort. Mr. President, this legislation represents an uncommon victory for fairness and a rare but hopefully increasingly more common example of what we can do if we work together to accomplish our mutual goals. The essence of our work in the legislative branch is compromise, and the compromise reached by Senator Hatch and I will bring partial voting representation to the District while ensuring Utah receives the additional representation it is due. I know there are those who believe this bill is unconstitutional. But the District clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to legislate ``in all cases whatsoever'' pertaining to the District, provides ample authority for the legislative branch to give DC residents voting rights. Mr. President, this is our moment to do right here at home, just as we have done throughout our history for our democratic allies abroad. By giving the citizens of the District of Columbia a vote in the House, we will ensure not only that their voices will finally be heard. We will be following the imperative of our history and moral values. The Framers of our Constitution in effect placed with Congress the solemn responsibility of assuring that the rights of DC citizens would be protected in the future, just as it is our responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens throughout this great country. Congress has failed to meet this obligation for more than 200 years, and I am not prepared to make DC citizens wait another 200 years. Mr. President, the tax-paying citizens of the District of Columbia have been without congressional voting representation for too long. The House has acted. Now it is time for the Senate to act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hatch and me in support of this essential legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating today contains language that would have Congress take control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq. Like most Senators of both parties, I support the appropriations in this bill. But because I strongly oppose its language on Iraq, I will vote no. Earlier this week, the Senate majority leader spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center and laid out the case for why the bill now before this Chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq. It was the most comprehensive recent argument in support of this position, and so I wish to address myself to its content respectfully and point by point. I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore I wish to take it up in good faith and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in- depth because this is a very serious discussion we are having this morning for America and its future security. In his speech Monday, the Senate majority leader described the several steps this new strategy for Iraq would entail. The first step, he said, is to: . . . transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war . . . to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter- terror operations. I ask my colleagues to step back for a moment and consider this plan. When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be policing a civil war, that their operation should be restricted to the narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean? To begin with, it means our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias and terrorists who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has effectively argued should be the focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would, instead, be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes. I fear if we begin to withdraw, it will become both vicious and horrific. In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians--men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone or their ethnicity. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us correctly to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to cry out and demand intervention in Darfur. To me, this makes no moral sense at all. It also makes no strategic or military sense. Al-Qaida's own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence because they know this is their best way to collapse Iraq's political center, overthrow Iraq's elected Government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base. That is why al-Qaida blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last February, and that is why we are seeing mass-casualty suicide bombings by al-Qaida in Baghdad today. The sectarian violence the majority leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence al-Qaida hopes will take it to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality. I don't know how to say it any more plainly. It is al-Qaida that is trying to inflame a full- fledged civil war in Iraq. So we cannot both fight al-Qaida and get out of the civil war. They are one. The majority leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct targeted counterterror operations under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys. But, again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations? By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike, and that, in turn, requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence. This is the kind of intelligence which can only come from ordinary Iraqis--the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. That, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side because they conclude we are there on their side, gaining their trust, and convincing them they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them. This is no great secret. It is at the heart of what is happening in Iraq today and is part of the Petraeus plan. In sum, on this point, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still say you are going to fight al-Qaida there. If you believe that there is no hope of winning in Iraq or that the cost of victory there is not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible. There is another irony in the Iraq language in this bill. For most of the past 4 years, under former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted antiterrorist sweeps and raids--in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us. That Rumsfeld strategy failed, and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops doing the right things to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for al-Qaida and its allies to exploit and allowed sectarian violence to begin to run rampant. Al- Qaida stepped into the security vacuum, as did the sectarian militias, and through horrific violence created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible. For years, many Members of Congress saw this and spoke to it. We talked about it. We called for more troops and a new strategy--and, for that matter, a new Secretary of Defense. Yet now, when President Bush has come around, when he has acknowledged the mistakes that have been made and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq and to install a new Secretary of Defense and a new commander in Iraq, now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old failed strategy--the Rumsfeld strategy--wasn't so bad after all, because that is what would be adopted in the language on Iraq in this bill. What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007? The second element in the plan outlined by the majority leader on Monday is the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007. Let us be absolutely clear what this means. The legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. That withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus-- in short, regardless of reality, on October 1, 2007. As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date, what strategic or military significance this date holds. Why not September 1? Why not January 1 or April 1? October 1, 2007, is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible. It is, I contend, a deadline for defeat. How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First he said a date for withdrawal puts ``pressure on the Iraqis to make desperately needed political compromises.'' But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen, regardless of what the Iraqi Government does. How, then, if you are an Iraqi Government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices? On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its sponsors intend. I ask the Chair, how much time have I used?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I gather Senator Cornyn has yielded his 5 minutes to me?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of American troops in the months ahead would ``almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation.'' That is the NIE, broadly supported and embraced by proponents of the Iraq language in this legislation. Second, the majority leader said withdrawing our troops will ``reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency.'' My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is saying the insurgency is in some measure being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, presumably the insurgency will diminish. But I ask my colleagues, where is the evidence to support this theory? I find none. In fact, all the evidence I find supports the opposite conclusion. Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command and began implementing our new strategy there, American forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul, Fallujah, Tel'Afar, and Baghdad. What happened in these places? Did they stabilize when the American troops left? Did the insurgency go away? Of course not. On the contrary, in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, al-Qaida and sectarian warriors rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence. So I ask advocates of withdrawal, on what evidence, on what data have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency there when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that withdrawal, the kind of withdrawal mandated by this legislation, will strengthen the terrorists and insurgents and increase violence? I ask my colleagues to consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading tribal leaders in Anbar Province, who is now fighting on our side against al-Qaida because he is convinced we are on his side. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw? He said: In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar, if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos. This is a man whose father was killed by al-Qaida, who risks his life every day to work with us, a man who was described by one Army officer as ``the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with . . . since 2003.'' In his remarks earlier this week, Senator Reid also observed there is ``a large and growing population of millions--who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over.'' On this I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. But my question to him and others supporting this language is this: How does this strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq who sit precariously on the fence? What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to these people who are the majority in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them we are not longer going to make an effort to protect them and their families against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare we will be withdrawing our forces, regardless of whether they are making progress in the next few months toward political reconciliation? Where will their hopes be for a better life when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability and opportunity for a better life that the majority of Iraqis clearly yearn for? Do my friends believe this is the way to convince Iraqis and the world of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this Chamber believe that by announcing a date certain for withdrawal we will empower Iraqi moderates, the mainstream, or enable Iraq's reconstruction, or open more schools for their children or more hospitals for their families or provide more freedom for everyone? With all due respect, this is a fantasy. The third step the majority leader proposes is to impose ``tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government.'' I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government. But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them-- regardless of how they behave. We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on. But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like al-Qaida in Iraq will simply vanish. Al-Qaida is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table. It wants to blow up the table--along with everyone seated at it. Al- Qaida wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality. The fourth step that the majority leader proposed on Monday is a ``diplomatic, economic, and political offensive . . . starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region.'' I understand why we are drawn to ideas such as those that are in this legislation on Iraq. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people with Iraq. All of us would like to believe there is a better solution--quicker, easier--to the challenges we face in Iraq. But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths of which I have tried to speak. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida terrorism and sectarian violence or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iraq and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq, stop enabling the terrorists and insurgents who are killing too many Americans and Iraqis there today. What we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we are beginning to make and a recognition of the significant challenges we still face. There are many uncertainties before us, many complexities, many challenges. Barely half of the new troops General Petraeus requested have even arrived in Iraq. In following General Petraeus's path, there is no guarantee of success, but there is hope and a new plan for success. In rejecting General Petraeus's path, as this legislation would do, there is a guarantee of failure and, I fear, disaster. The plan embedded in this language contains no reasonable prospects for success. It is a strategy based on catch phrases and bromides rather than military realities and all that is on the line for us in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes that have been made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them. Let me be absolutely clear. In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost, but if we follow the plan in this legislation, it will be lost and so, I fear, will much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home. That is why I will vote no.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, Senator Brownback, Senator Akaka, and I are introducing legislation that establishes a wildlife global animal information network for surveillance to enhance preparedness and awareness of emerging infectious diseases. More than 60 percent of the approximately 1,400 currently known infectious diseases are shared between wildlife and humans. Over the past 30 years we have had many emerging infectious disease outbreaks, including hantavirus, plague, ebola, HIV/AIDS, SARS, and H5N1 influenza. In fact, more than 35 new infectious diseases have emerged in humans since 1980, which means that approximately one new infectious disease in humans has appeared every 8 months. These diseases have resulted in many deaths and billions of dollars in costs. Millions of wild animals are traded globally and come into contact with humans and dozens of other species, contributing to the introduction of new diseases in humans. There are numerous examples of these spreading viruses that pose significant threats across the globe. For instance, the spreading H5N1 virus, a highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) strain, is a significant threat to global human health, the global poultry industry, and the global economy more generally. The emerging infectious disease HIV/AIDS, whose origin has been traced back to the human consumption of African nonhuman primates, has had a devastating impact in the developing world, with over 40 million people worldwide living with HIV/AIDS and 3 million AIDS deaths globally in 2006. Despite the threats that these and future diseases pose, we lack a comprehensive and coordinated approach to monitoring these emerging infectious diseases and the nexus between wildlife, people, and domestic animals. Our legislation would establish a Wildlife Global Animal Information Network for Surveillance (GAINS). This Wildlife GAINS system would include Federal and State agency partners, multilateral agency partners, conservation organizations with expertise in wildlife monitoring and surveillance, veterinary and medical schools, and other national and international partners. The legislation encourages the establishment of critical public-private partnerships because of the unique strengths and capabilities that NGOs have in developing countries. They will play a key role in assisting developing countries develop much needed surveillance mechanisms and in facilitating the dissemination of critical data to all partners. USAID has taken a leadership role and already committed $192 million for avian influenza preparedness and response activities in developing countries affected by the H5N1 virus. Congress must support these efforts establishing a comprehensive worldwide wildlife health surveillance system to detect and track emerging infectious diseases. Wildlife GAINS would be a comprehensive tool to prevent the outbreak and spread of new diseases that have no treatments or cures. We must prevent and detect the next generation of infectious diseases to prevent the pain and suffering that diseases such as HIV/AIDS and H5N1 have caused millions all over the world.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, Senator Brownback, Senator Akaka, and I are introducing legislation that establishes a wildlife global animal information network for surveillance to enhance preparedness and awareness of emerging infectious diseases. More than 60 percent of the approximately 1,400 currently known infectious diseases are shared between wildlife and humans. Over the past 30 years we have had many emerging infectious disease outbreaks, including hantavirus, plague, ebola, HIV/AIDS, SARS, and H5N1 influenza. In fact, more than 35 new infectious diseases have emerged in humans since 1980, which means that approximately one new infectious disease in humans has appeared every 8 months. These diseases have resulted in many deaths and billions of dollars in costs. Millions of wild animals are traded globally and come into contact with humans and dozens of other species, contributing to the introduction of new diseases in humans. There are numerous examples of these spreading viruses that pose significant threats across the globe. For instance, the spreading H5N1 virus, a highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) strain, is a significant threat to global human health, the global poultry industry, and the global economy more generally. The emerging infectious disease HIV/AIDS, whose origin has been traced back to the human consumption of African nonhuman primates, has had a devastating impact in the developing world, with over 40 million people worldwide living with HIV/AIDS and 3 million AIDS deaths globally in 2006. Despite the threats that these and future diseases pose, we lack a comprehensive and coordinated approach to monitoring these emerging infectious diseases and the nexus between wildlife, people, and domestic animals. Our legislation would establish a Wildlife Global Animal Information Network for Surveillance (GAINS). This Wildlife GAINS system would include Federal and State agency partners, multilateral agency partners, conservation organizations with expertise in wildlife monitoring and surveillance, veterinary and medical schools, and other national and international partners. The legislation encourages the establishment of critical public-private partnerships because of the unique strengths and capabilities that NGOs have in developing countries. They will play a key role in assisting developing countries develop much needed surveillance mechanisms and in facilitating the dissemination of critical data to all partners. USAID has taken a leadership role and already committed $192 million for avian influenza preparedness and response activities in developing countries affected by the H5N1 virus. Congress must support these efforts establishing a comprehensive worldwide wildlife health surveillance system to detect and track emerging infectious diseases. Wildlife GAINS would be a comprehensive tool to prevent the outbreak and spread of new diseases that have no treatments or cures. We must prevent and detect the next generation of infectious diseases to prevent the pain and suffering that diseases such as HIV/AIDS and H5N1 have caused millions all over the world.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the America COMPETES Act. I am pleased to join Senators Reid and McConnell, together with Senators Bingaman, Alexander, Inouye, Stevens, Ensign, Kennedy, Enzi and a majority of the Senate, in this bipartisan effort. I particularly commend my colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign, for his foresight and leadership on innovation and competitiveness issues. Beginning in 2005, I started working together with Senator Ensign on the National Innovation Act to build a new century of progress and prosperity for our Nation by spurring a new wave of American innovation. With his leadership in the Commerce Committee, Senator Ensign and I supported a bipartisan approach, focused on talent, investment, and infrastructure, to sustain and enhance U.S. science and technology leadership for the future. The National Innovation Act addressed a number of the most critical issues involving technology leadership in the United States, realizing the critical need for increased Federal support for basic research. Senator Ensign and I also worked closely together on the National Innovation Education Act. The intent of that bill was to enhance our science and technology talent base and to improve national competitiveness through strengthened education initiatives. Our bill proposed initiatives spanning across the science education spectrum to improve quality instruction and access to learning for all students. I am pleased that the America COMPETES Act addresses many of the approaches to science research and education proposed by Senator Ensign and I in these measures in addition to many of the initiatives put forth by Senators Bingaman, Alexander, and others in the PACE bills. In large part, these bills sought to incorporate recommendations from the National Academies' report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and ``Innovate America'' from the Council on Competitiveness. In this bill we seek to address the challenge of keeping the United States competitive in the global economy. Innovation, from the development of the Internet to the sequencing of the human genome, stimulates economic growth and improves the quality of life and health for all Americans. Through our investments and leadership in basic research and innovation, we ensure that our children and grandchildren will continue to have the unprecedented prosperity and opportunity that we enjoy today. We also have high expectations that science and engineering will solve essential worldwide needs from the mitigation of natural disasters to the development of alternative energy sources. This act recognizes that the Nation depends upon the development and the productivity of highly trained people to generate these innovations. It is disconcerting that only 29 percent of Americans believe the United States has the most innovative economy in the world. Nearly half choose China or Japan instead. Why? The No. 1 reason cited by Americans is their belief that other countries are more committed to their education, their youth, or their schools. In fact, tests show U.S. students are falling behind other developed nations in math and science. We must restore confidence in our education system and ensure it is second to none. For example, we need to engage the Nation's top universities to lead some of their best and brightest students, especially in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, fields, into successful teaching careers. In this bill we stimulate partnerships for college math, science, and engineering departments to work with teacher development programs. These programs will increase the supply of certified, knowledgeable teachers in areas critical to meeting America's needs, giving us a greater opportunity to improve student interest and achievement in STEM areas. We know that new teachers in STEM classrooms across the country need support and mentoring from knowledgeable, established teachers. This bill supports programs for existing teachers seeking to enhance their content knowledge, teaching skills, and leadership in STEM and foreign languages. We cannot wait for students to reach college to ensure that they are prepared for the future. It is troubling that many students with their newly obtained high school diplomas find themselves ill-equipped for college or the workforce. It is time to ensure that high schools prepare their students for the future. To do this right, States must start aligning what children learn starting in kindergarten, or earlier, to meet the evolving higher education and business needs for the 21st century and beyond. High-quality data systems are also critical to improve schools and student outcomes. Accountability for high school graduation numbers and dropout rates is important to address education reform in our high schools. States and schools need data systems to trace successful educational outcomes back to specific programs, coursework, and interventions. They need to know what works and what doesn't work. I am pleased that this legislation contains many of the components of a bill I introduced last year, the College Pathways Act, to improve data systems and alignment. The National Science Foundation is the principal agency sustaining basic research across all science and engineering fields. Basic research outcomes have led to many important innovations, stimulating economic growth and improving the quality of life for all Americans. NSF focuses on the areas of discovery, learning, and in building the country's research infrastructure and world-class facilities. These areas line up directly with our three primary areas in this act: increased research investment, STEM education, and innovative infrastructure. It is critical that we develop and support each of these: the people, their ideas and the large-scale tools needed for discovery and innovation. To encourage more students to enter technical professions, this legislation increases Federal support for STEM graduate fellowships and trainee programs by expanding the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program and the Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program by a total of 2,500 students. The America COMPETES Act further addresses the issue of improving talent across scientific disciplines by expanding the existing STEM Talent Expansion Program, STEP, to the scope originally intended. The STEP, or Tech Talent Program, which I first proposed in 2001 as part of the Technology Talent Act, provides competitive grants to undergraduate institutions to develop new methods of increasing the number of students earning degrees in science, math, and engineering. The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the principal Federal agency for research in high energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences. This legislation puts the Office of Science on a doubling track, over 10 years. We create important educational opportunities through Centers of Excellence in Mathematics and Science. These centers bring together our premier National Laboratories as partners with high-need high schools. National Laboratories also will host summer teacher institutes and will provide expert assistance to teachers at specialty schools in math and science. The bill also creates an Innovation Acceleration Research Program to stimulate transformational research by setting a goal for Federal research agencies to allocate 8 percent of their current R&D budgets to breakthrough research--the kind of research that gave us fiber optics, the Internet, and countless other technologies relied on every day in this country and around the world. We anticipate this funding will be used for ``grand challenges'' and other high-risk/high-reward research that will expand the frontiers of discovery and innovation. It is time once more for the Nation to focus on the health and direction of scientific research. Late in 1944, President Roosevelt called on a leading science and engineering advocate, Vannevar Bush, to report on how the Nation should prepare in the post-World War II era to deal with the ``new frontiers of the mind [that] are before us'' and to ``create a fuller and more fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life.'' The report, ``Science--The Endless Frontier,'' led to the development of the National Science Foundation. We call on the President to issue a new report on key research and technology challenges based on a national science and technology summit of leaders from labor, industry, academia, government, and elsewhere. The President will also establish a Council on Innovation and Competitiveness to, among other things, assess R&D investment and address future areas needed to maintain the United States as a world leader in research and technological innovation. We must continue to encourage the groundbreaking experimentation and longer-term outlook that made this country great. I am pleased to join my colleagues in this bipartisan effort to address the science, technology, and education needs that will fuel innovation and continue to drive American growth and prosperity. I urge my colleagues to join us and support passage of the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a recent change in the top leadership in our Army. Dr. Francis Harvey departed as Secretary of the Army at a ceremony at Fort Myer, VA. Farewell ceremonies are often held at Fort Myer for soldiers of all ranks as they pass the torch to those men and women who will take over the responsibility of defending our Nation. The ceremony at Fort Myer honors their contributions and symbolizes the continuity between the past and the future. Secretary of the Army Harvey's service as Secretary of the Army was during a particularly crucial time for the Army. The Nation is at war against a dangerous and determined enemy. That war is of long duration, and the Army has borne the brunt of the fighting. The nature of this war, and the demands it has made on the Army, has resulted in great challenges for the senior leadership of the Army. Secretary Harvey accepted those challenges and worked with skill, determination, and honor to overcome them and keep our Army strong and ready today and to prepare it for tomorrow. Many of us in Congress know of and appreciated Secretary Harvey's commitment to the Army. But the person who is best able to tell of his accomplishments and his contribution to the Army is his close partner, the Chief of Staff of the Army. I am pleased to commend to my colleagues GEN Peter Schoomaker's speech thanking Secretary Harvey for his service to the Army. I bid Secretary Harvey farewell, thank him for his service to our country, and wish him all the best in the next chapter of his life. The material follows. Speech by General Schoomaker Secretary and Mrs. Harvey, Deputy Secretary England, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Pace . . . Sergeant Major of the Army Preston, other distinguished guests and friends. Today Dr. Fran Harvey, our 19th Secretary of the Army, departs our ranks but not our hearts. I am grateful to have had the privilege and honor to serve by his side. When Secretary Harvey was sworn-in back in November 2004 I provided him a photo of a Soldier on bended knee in Iraq carrying an almost unbearable load. I explained to Secretary Harvey that this picture should serve to remind him--that like all leaders across our Army-- everything he does will impact our Soldiers on the ground. Our challenge, therefore, was to lighten the load our Soldiers bear (in other words, to ``take things out of their rucksacks,'' as we like to say). While he has kept it on his desk for two years let me tell you in no uncertain terms Secretary Harvey needed no such reminder. He was quick to state, and truly believed, that ``Soldiers are and will always be our centerpiece. Their efforts are the reason the Army is one of the most respected organizations in America.'' This conviction was evident in everything I saw him do as our Secretary. Everything was based on his passionate concern for the Army, its Soldiers, their families, and our Army Civilians. This concern is reflected in the other picture on his desk, one of two ladies, the mothers of two fallen Soldiers. That picture serves as a reminder of the sacrifices our Soldiers and their families are making. His dedication was reflected in his personal and professional commitment to ``provide a quality of life for our Soldiers that matched the quality of service they provide to the Nation.'' And he has worked tirelessly to do just that. Because of his vision, his dedication, and his unfailing commitment he departs our ranks today knowing with absolute certainty that our Soldiers and their families as well as the Army Civilians who support them have benefited greatly from his service. I have no doubt that our Army is far better today than we were just two years ago Our progress in many cases is the direct result of his determination to stand-up to those who challenged the basis of our requirements to properly support our Soldiers. He also inspired us to think differently and far more strategically about how we ``do business.'' Without doubt these qualities are a testament to the unique brand of values-based, principle-centered leadership he demonstrated with absolute conviction in his service as Secretary of the Army. In short his impact on our Army has been profound. He has moved us significantly forward in our collective and continuing efforts to meet the needs of the Nation that we serve. My remarks will be brief because you came to hear Secretary Harvey, not me. We've convened today to honor him and his family and bear witness to the sacrifice of our Soldiers and the contributions our Army is making worldwide in defense of the Nation. We often overlook the fact that to perform his duties as our Secretary . . . he has endured his own experience in ``family separation'' by being apart from Mary his gracious wife of over forty years for more than twenty-eight months. While we could spend the remainder of today highlighting Secretary Harvey's achievements neither he nor you would be very appreciative of ``the mother of all laundry lists.'' So I will briefly highlight three broad but interrelated touchstones: People, Resources, and Teamwork. Dr. Harvey's commitment to people has enabled us to sustain the overall health and viability of our All-Volunteer force-- which is now being tested for the first time in a protracted conflict. His actions have enabled us to achieve unprecedented levels of both recruitment and retention. ``People are the Army'' and we recruit more of them each year than all of the other Services combined. In Fiscal Year 2006 the Active component had its best year in nine years recruiting over 80,000 men and women. The National Guard had its best year in thirteen years recruiting over 69,000 people; finally, the Reserves achieved over a 25 percent increase from the previous year bringing in 25,000 new people. His accomplishments on behalf of the great people in our organization have been a logical continuation of his voluntary service to the Army as a key member of the Army Science Board while a private citizen over many years. They include: Improvements which enabled us to meet our goals for recruiting and retaining our All Volunteer force; decisions and support to provide for better access and better management of our vital National Guard and Army Reserve units not as individuals but instead as whole cohesive units fully prepared and ready to perform their duties amidst new challenges; and decisions and support to grow our force--in a extraordinary way--to better meet our needs and to alleviate, over time, current levels of stress on our Soldiers and their families. We now have dramatic enhancements to ``push the envelope'' increasing our ability to protect the force. These include considerable improvements affecting all elements of the Department to improve leadership, training, education, and career opportunities for our civilians and our civilian executives and equally impressive improvements in finding ways--to change our culture--to drive out waste and improve both efficiency and effectiveness. In this regard he thought and acted unequivocally like a Soldier. He was driven by a single unifying purpose: to free human and financial resources for more compelling wartime and operational needs. Properly focusing activity and obtaining resources to enable that activity are core tasks for senior leaders. No one that I have served with in public or private life does it better than Dr. Fran Harvey. Our budgeted dollars for Fiscal 2008, due to his personal efforts, are the highest in our history--which exemplify his leadership in this regard. Working in full collaboration with me and all of ``the right people'' he quickly established a strategic framework that reflected our most urgent challenges and ongoing initiatives. He then set out in a determined yet pragmatic fashion to obtain the resources required to support our Army to ensure it was fully prepared to serve at the forefront of the war on terror and to execute the full range of its other worldwide missions. Creating relevant, ready forces is the surest measure of effective Army leadership. Since 2004 sixty-four (64) Brigade Combat Teams have been converted or are in the process of being converted; 148 multifunctional and functional support Brigades have been converted, or are in the process of being converted, to the modular design force. I won't dwell on numbers. While important they do little to tell this story. I will highlight instead the personal courage and integrity he demonstrated in challenging the bureaucracy, changing perceptions, and setting us on a path to get our resources and our requirements in balance. His leadership proved to be decisive in this regard. Not only did he establish a methodology (demonstrating why he has been so successful in ``Corporate America'') to explain why our costs have increased in recent years, he also promoted understanding and acceptance at the highest levels of our Government for our most compelling needs. We will rely upon Fran Harvey's example ``to do what is right'' for many years to come. He also inspired all of us in the Army to achieve more--in what we do personally . . . and in what we expect to be delivered by others. In this regard . . . two of his deep seated beliefs will remain embedded in the culture which shapes and characterizes our Army: ``In the bottom line it's all about `cost, schedule, and performance' plain and simple and what gets measured gets done.'' His efforts have dramatically improved the quality and openness of our working relationships within the Department of Defense and with the many stakeholders upon whom we depend for resources and support. In a word, he is a genuine ``team player'' who has engendered unprecedented levels of teamwork which will benefit our Soldiers. Our personal working relationship is the result of our mutual decision to operate from the same playbook. And that playbook was based on a couple of key fundamentals. We agreed that the door between our offices would always remain open and that our relationship would be based upon one core belief--that Soldiers would remain the center of all that we do. Over the past two years we've crossed that threshold that used to be blocked many times a day. Opening the door between our offices not only opened lines of communication, it also enabled progress in three other very important ways: First, as an outgrowth of the extremely close partnership between Secretary Harvey and me we set the tone for a strong civil- military team at the top of the Department. Second, we were unified in our commitment to a single Vision--the Army Vision--that centers, as it must, on the great Soldiers who fill our ranks and the dedicated Army Civilians who support them to generate and sustain our All-Volunteer force. Third, teamwork and a shared vision for the future enabled our entire team to better articulate and defend the Army's most compelling needs. I'm convinced that these positive developments played a vital role in dramatically changing our current and projected resource posture and ultimately to better provide for our Soldiers and to better accomplish what the Nation demands from its Army. So as we farewell our 19th Secretary I say so long to a visionary, a ``true leader'' and a teammate with whom I have been enormously proud to serve. He has led the Army to unprecedented levels of civil-military cooperation, fostered open communication, and mutual respect (even in times of disagreement) all in the interest of Soldiers, families, and the Army mission--to conduct prompt, sustained combat and stability operations on land. I have mentioned just a few of the seminal achievements that will endure and continue to bear fruit long after Dr. Harvey departs our ranks today. Selfless leadership is that rare and wonderful commodity of which every nation possesses too little. Its presence is unmistakable, its impact enduring. We are fortunate to have the continuity of vision and direction that Acting Secretary Geren now represents. Sir, we welcome your leadership and your experience as a Member of Congress and within the office of the Secretary of Defense. We know that you'll lead and care for our Soldiers and families and that you're going to keep us on course. Secretary Harvey, Sir, thank you for your service for your friendship and for living the Army Values and for honoring our Warrior Ethos. Because of your leadership we're ``Army Strong'' and as our song says we'll ``keep rolling along.'' Together we wish you, Mary, Francis, John and the rest of your family Godspeed. Army Strong!

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, along with my friend Senator Sam Brownback, I am introducing the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act, which will protect and foster populations of imperiled great cats and rare canines outside of North America. These species, including the cheetah and the Asiatic wild dog, are threatened by habitat loss, poaching, disease, and pollution. The conservation fund established by the bill we are introducing today would sustain current conservation efforts and expand strategic measures to restore imperiled populations. The struggle of the African wild dog is one example of the plight these large carnivores face. The less than 2,500 adults that remain not only have to combat the widespread misconception that they are livestock killers, but are extremely susceptible to those diseases common in domesticated animals. They have lost 89 percent of their habitat and are now found in only 14 of the 39 countries that comprise their historic range. The snow leopard is another example. Like all great cats, the snow leopard needs a large tract of uninterrupted land in which to live, but the snow leopard's habitat in China has been fragmented due to human encroachment. The cats are also under extreme poaching pressures as their fur is sold on the black market. The bill we are introducing today would help protect these predators at the top of the food chain. Our legislation is modeled after the highly successful Multinational Species Conservation Funds, which conserve rhinos, great apes, Asian elephants, African elephants, and marine turtles. Our bill would authorize $5 million in annual spending for the conservation of more than a dozen species of great cats and rare canines. I do not think our children and grandchildren will forgive us if we stand by and let these magnificent animals drift into extinction. With a relatively small investment, we can invigorate ongoing conservation efforts around the world.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, along with my friend Senator Sam Brownback, I am introducing the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act, which will protect and foster populations of imperiled great cats and rare canines outside of North America. These species, including the cheetah and the Asiatic wild dog, are threatened by habitat loss, poaching, disease, and pollution. The conservation fund established by the bill we are introducing today would sustain current conservation efforts and expand strategic measures to restore imperiled populations. The struggle of the African wild dog is one example of the plight these large carnivores face. The less than 2,500 adults that remain not only have to combat the widespread misconception that they are livestock killers, but are extremely susceptible to those diseases common in domesticated animals. They have lost 89 percent of their habitat and are now found in only 14 of the 39 countries that comprise their historic range. The snow leopard is another example. Like all great cats, the snow leopard needs a large tract of uninterrupted land in which to live, but the snow leopard's habitat in China has been fragmented due to human encroachment. The cats are also under extreme poaching pressures as their fur is sold on the black market. The bill we are introducing today would help protect these predators at the top of the food chain. Our legislation is modeled after the highly successful Multinational Species Conservation Funds, which conserve rhinos, great apes, Asian elephants, African elephants, and marine turtles. Our bill would authorize $5 million in annual spending for the conservation of more than a dozen species of great cats and rare canines. I do not think our children and grandchildren will forgive us if we stand by and let these magnificent animals drift into extinction. With a relatively small investment, we can invigorate ongoing conservation efforts around the world.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today the Senate approaches a decisive turning point in the history of our engagement in Iraq, a moment that will have repercussions not only for the future of that country but for the security of our country as well. The immediate question before us is direct. Should Congress impose a deadline for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq? To that question I answer: No, no, no. We all know the circumstances under which this vote is taking place. The administration is politically weak. The war is politically unpopular. It has never been easier to advocate a withdrawal. But I cannot support it because I believe deeply that it would be wrong. Our cause in Iraq remains just and necessary, and we continue to have the prospect of achieving success there. If passed, this legislation would order a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in 120 days, regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of whether we are succeeding or failing, regardless of the consequences for America's security, regardless of the consequences for our allies in the region, and regardless of the recommendations of the man we unanimously put in charge of our troops there--GEN David Petraeus. In short, this withdrawal would be ordered by this legislation regardless of reality. This congressionally ordered withdrawal of our troops from Iraq would essentially be giving up on our cause in Iraq just when our prospects are picking up there. It would snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq today--progress that is critically important to our success in the larger war against terrorism. What then are the arguments given to justify such an arbitrary order to our troops from this Congress so far away? First, proponents of withdrawal keep returning to the proposition that American soldiers shouldn't be policing a civil war. Surely my colleagues don't mean to say the U.S. military has never or should never police a civil war. That would certainly come as a surprise to our soldiers who have been keeping the peace in Bosnia and Kosovo over the past decade, dispatched there wisely and strongly under a Democratic President with the support of Democrats in Congress. Clearly, our military has policed civil wars in the past and will do so and must do so in the future. So why do proponents of withdrawal from Iraq keep insisting it shouldn't happen now? The answer has to do with the way some people choose to characterize what is happening in Iraq. When they suggest our soldiers are stuck in a civil war there, it suggests the conflict has become hopeless, a pit of violence where there are no heroes, only villains, and where our military cannot possibly do any good. Is this the case? I think the facts suggest not. There are more heroes by far than villains in Iraq today and, most of all, there is the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people who are the innocent victims of violence and want nothing more than to live secure and free lives. Iraq has a government--a government freely elected by the people; a government where every day Iraqis of every ethnicity and sectarian identity come together. That is not a civil war. The Iraqi Government has faults and weaknesses, to be sure, and we should be using every instrument at our disposal to pressure its leaders to make better choices. But there is a world of difference between the moderates who compose the Iraqi Government and the extremists who seek to murder them. The image of Iraq as a country in which everyone is complicit in the violence also overlooks something else. It overlooks the innocent victims of that violence who are the majority. The truth is we are confronted in Iraq today with a deliberated, calculated campaign of murder of civilians, often on the basis of religious identity alone, by insurgents and terrorists. All of us should be able to unite around the proposition, therefore, that we as Americans have a moral responsibility not to pick up and walk away and turn our backs on the slaughter. Like the Serb death squads that tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo or Hutu extremists in Rwanda, or the jingaweit today in Darfur, the sectarian violence we are witnessing in Iraq is directed at the extermination of human beings on the basis of nothing more than who they are. It is an awful irony of this debate that many of the same people who consistently and correctly call on the United States to do more to stop the genocide in Darfur now demand we abandon the Iraqis and invite a genocide there. I know some believe the violence in Iraq is inevitable, the outgrowth of ancient hatreds that exist outside the bounds of normal politics. We heard those arguments before also. We heard them in the 1990s about Yugoslavia and about Rwanda. Surely, from those conflicts, we should know better than that now. The wanton slaughter of innocent people that our soldiers are trying to stop in Baghdad, and now with some success, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds but the consequence of a deliberate, calculated strategy by an identifiable group of perpetrators, first and foremost al-Qaida. We know this because al-Qaida itself has said so. Its leaders have stated openly that they have worked to foment hatred, fear, and violence between Sunnis and Shiites, precisely because al- Qaida knows it represents their best opportunity to overthrow the elected Iraqi Government, to sow the seeds of chaos, to stamp out any hope of Middle Eastern democracy, and, sadly, as this debate shows today, to push the United States of America--the world's superpower, the embodiment of the hopes and dreams of so many for freedom--to the point of retreat from Iraq. This is also why the notion expressed in the supplemental that we can separate the fight against terrorism from the fight against sectarian violence in Iraq simply defies reality. The fact is, the worst sectarian violence in Iraq is being committed by al-Qaida and other Islamist terrorists. The biggest cause of the violence in Iraq is not the split between the Sunnis and Shiites but a specific ideology--the ideology of Islamic extremism--that is trying to exploit that divide for its own evil ends. The success of that ideology is not inevitable. Thanks to General Petraeus, his troops, and the new strategy, sectarian violence is down. Maqtada al-Sadr has disappeared. The Mahdi army is splintering. Displaced Iraqi families are returning to their homes. Of course, we will not know for some time to what extent the new strategy will succeed, but it is clear that, for the first time in a long time, there is reason for cautious optimism about Iraq. Why would we, at this moment, order a withdrawal of the very troops that are bringing greater security and a cause for optimism? Mr. President, the record of the past 2 months shows Prime Minister Maliki has allowed and encouraged U.S. forces to sweep into Sadr City. He has worked with General Petraeus to ensure that all of the Iraqi Army units required by the new strategy are available. He has flown to the heart of Al Anbar Province to meet with Sunni leaders. These breakthroughs have happened not in spite of but because of the American commitment to Iraq and because of the presence of General Petraeus and his troops. I ask my colleagues to consider what it will mean if Congress now orders our troops to pull back from this battle, just at the moment that they are beginning to succeed. Consider the consequences if we knowingly and willingly withdraw our forces and abandon one of the few states in the Middle East to have had free, competitive elections as an alternative to extremism and violence. I understand the frustration and anger and sheer sense of exhaustion so many feel about Iraq. I am acutely aware of the enormous toll this war has taken. But I ask those determined to order a withdrawal to think carefully about the consequences, and not just geopolitical but moral, for the United States. We cannot redeploy from our moral responsibility in Iraq or in our foreign policy, more generally. It is contrary to our traditions. It is contrary to our values. It is contrary to our interests. Yet that is precisely what this Congress will be calling for if we order our troops to withdraw now. That is precisely what the Congress will be calling for if we order our troops to withdraw from Iraq now, regardless of what is happening on the ground. I appeal to my colleagues, don't do this. Give General Petraeus and his troops a chance to succeed for us in Iraq. Strike this language from this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment to strike section 1315 of the supplemental appropriations bill now before the Senate. The motion to strike was proposed earlier today by the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran. I am honored to be a cosponsor of it. I wish to explain to my colleagues why I am cosponsoring it. This is a bill that is quite necessary to the funding of our military effort in Iraq and more broadly. The bill has kind of grown like Topsy and has a lot of other stuff in it. Maybe I am reflecting on the fact that I am going to see my grandchildren soon. One of my favorite Dr. Seuss books is about Thidwick the moose. Thidwick is a glorious moose with large antlers. Various creatures in the forest begin to occupy, ultimately quite unjustifiably, Thidwick's antlers until they fall off. There are parts of this supplemental appropriations bill that in my opinion, respectfully, do not belong there. Most significant of those is section 1315, which our motion would strike. Section 1315 would order a withdrawal of American troops in Iraq to begin 120 days after passage, regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, regardless of the opinions of our partners in Iraq and throughout the region, regardless of whether security is improving or deteriorating, the most significant of all. The withdrawal would be ordered by this section of the bill regardless of whether security was improving or deteriorating on the ground. It is the wrong measure at the wrong time. Ultimately, it will be a lot of sound and fury that signifies nothing but, more importantly, that accomplishes nothing and may do harm. Why do I say it will accomplish nothing? Because everyone in this Chamber knows that the President of the United States could not have been more clear: If section 1315 is in this bill and is sent to his desk, he will veto it. In my opinion, he should veto it. Everyone in this Chamber knows there are not the votes in either House of Congress to override that veto. So that all that would have been accomplished is a delay in getting essential support to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, support they need and on which they are counting. That is unacceptable. Obviously, Iraq and what has happened there, what is happening now is on our minds. We should discuss it. There are ways in which we can appropriately legislate with regard to Iraq. In fact, in this bill before us, there is a section on benchmarks which establishes for ourselves and for the Iraqi Government some benchmarks, some goals that we have in mind for what they primarily, on their own, should be achieving as they move to secure Baghdad and the rest of the country and to take control of their own destiny, an Iraqi Government governing the Iraqi people, which was the aim of our overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The benchmarks are in there, inspired by the good work done by Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Warner of Virginia. Senator McCain and I, earlier in the debate on Iraq a couple of months ago, were prepared to introduce an amendment to have such benchmarks. So there was constructive work that could be done. The benchmarks in this bill are in the form of a sense of Congress. They are a message. But they are not tied to a deadline. The measure that passed the House last week actually has some benchmarks that are tied to triggers that would begin withdrawal from Iraq. President Eisenhower, speaking as a general, once said, now famously because it has been quoted often in these debates about Iraq, and I paraphrase: Anyone who sets a deadline, who argues for a deadline to be set in war doesn't understand war. I believe what General Eisenhower was saying is that war is a dynamic process, a terrible process, a deadly process, one we try, through the exercise of all our diplomatic strength, to avoid. But when you are in a war, you have to give some deference not just to the generals you authorized to be in command but to the reality on the ground. War is ever changing. I believe Eisenhower must have intended, when he said deadlines should not be set in war, that there are two occasions which would justify a withdrawal. One is when the mission is accomplished. When the purpose for which a nation entered a war is accomplished, then one withdraws in victory. The second occasion when one would withdraw, based on what is happening on the ground, not some arbitrary deadline set far from the battlefield, would be if those in charge conclude that it is impossible to achieve the mission, to achieve the purpose for which the military action, the war, was commenced. Then a retreat occurs, a retreat which is a retreat in defeat. As difficult as it has gone in Iraq and as many mistakes as have been made, as many setbacks as have occurred, as much as these mistakes and setbacks have stirred feelings of anger and frustration among the American people, which are totally understandable, justified, we have not reached the point in Iraq, in my considered judgment, where it is ready for a retreat because we have lost all hope of achieving our purposes there, which are to create a self-governing, self-sustaining Iraqi Government that will be our ally, particularly in the war against terrorism, as opposed to our enemy, and would create a model, a path, an alternative path to a better future in the Arab world, the Islamic world, than the death, hatred, and suicidal ambitions of al-Qaida and the other Islamic extremists, such as those who attacked us on September 11. We are in a long and difficult war, and the price paid by our heroic soldiers and their families has been heavy. I understand the feelings of anger and frustration among the American people. But what is not understandable, with all respect, is for Congress now to let the passions of this moment, in Washington, obscure what is happening at this moment in Baghdad and in Anbar. Our actions should be driven by the real-war conditions in Iraq, not by the mindset here in Washington. So I ask my colleagues to keep their minds open as we begin this very important and, critical debate. Our national security, in my opinion, is on the line in the outcome of this debate. The lives of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are on the line, quite literally, in the outcome of this debate. I ask my colleagues to keep their minds open and to make a judgment as to whether this section--ordering a withdrawal from Iraq within 120 days, regardless of what happens on the ground; to be essentially completed by March of next year when most American troops would be withdrawn, regardless of what is happening on the ground in Iraq--to keep their minds open as to whether this is the right time for such a measure, whether it is the right measure, and whether it has any chance to do anything but to send a mixed message from this Congress, particularly to those who are fighting for us. I ask my colleagues to look from here, for a moment, at what is actually happening on the ground in Baghdad and in Anbar Province, to the west, under the new security strategy with the new troops GEN David Petraeus is implementing. Here is what I hear people saying--this is preliminary, this is early, but it is encouraging--sectarian fighting between Sunni and Shia is down significantly in districts in Baghdad where American and Iraqi forces have entered. That means the number of people killed in sectarian conflict, violent acts, death squads in Baghdad is down significantly in those districts where Iraqi and American forces have entered and established a presence. As security improves, many Iraqi families that fled from their homes are returning to Baghdad. Moqtada al-Sadr, the head of the Mahdi militia, who has been so anti-American, has disappeared and many of his top lieutenants have been arrested. The Government of Prime Minister Maliki, the Government in Iraq, has shown the kind of strength and decisiveness that is an obvious and necessary precondition for progress there. I ask my colleagues to consider the testimony given to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair, last Wednesday by Stuart Bowen, Jr., the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction. Anybody who has followed Mr. Bowen's work knows this is a straight shooter. He is not in there to protect anybody. He is not in there to spin. He has told it as he sees it. He has been extremely critical of so much of what has happened in Iraq, particularly, obviously, within the jurisdiction the law gives him as Inspector General, which is to see how our money has been spent. He has documented waste in ways that are truly infuriating. So when Stuart Bowen says something encouraging about what he sees in Iraq, that matters to me, and I believe it should matter to others. Last Wednesday, before the committee, Mr. Bowen said the week before he had returned from his 15th visit to Iraq. He said: It's been about twenty months-- Almost 2 years-- since I have returned from Iraq with a sense of cautious optimism. I have that now. That is significant. Why on Earth--with independent testimony from Iraq that there are preliminary, encouraging signs of the effect of the new troops, the new plan, the new leader--why on Earth would we at this time order a withdrawal of those troops to begin within 120 days regardless? Why, in the face of these encouraging developments, would this Chamber demand that the essence of the plan that has brought about these encouraging developments should end? Why, just several weeks after confirming GEN David Petraeus to lead our effort in Iraq, would this Chamber block him from carrying out the strategy he shaped, is now implementing, and appears to be working? In my opinion, the deadline for withdrawal from Iraq that is in this bill now is a deadline for defeat, where victory and success are still possible. There are no guarantees, of course, in war. That is why we adjust our judgments according to what is happening on the ground. So there are no guarantees that the encouraging first results of the implementation of the Petraeus plan will continue and go to full success--no guarantees. But I can tell you this: If we adopt an arbitrary order to begin to withdraw our troops, regardless of what is happening on the ground in Iraq in the war, it will guarantee failure. That failure will have profound consequences for Iraq, which I believe will break up into not just full-fledged civil war but the kind of ethnic slaughter that drew us a decade ago into Bosnia to stop. And we will have withdrawn and be expected to stand by and let it happen. Of course, ultimately it will lead to what will be claimed as a victory for the forces of Islamic extremism, our enemies in this war we are fighting. It will, in my opinion, ultimately embolden them to strike us here at home again. So I appeal to my colleagues, as this debate on this amendment to strike begins, let's have a good debate. That is our nature. That is the essence of our democracy and of this Senate in which we are privileged to serve. But I ask my colleagues, in the end, to step back and think carefully about what this section 1315 would bring about, and instead of undermining General Petraeus, or at best sending a mixed message to him and his troops, let's give him and his troops the unified support and time they need to succeed for us. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withdraw the suggestion of an absence of a quorum, seeing my friend and colleague from Oklahoma now on the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled, Understanding the Realities of REAL ID: A Review of Efforts to Secure Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss two amendments that I have offered. The first would enable our Nation to better support our military and our veterans. On September 11, 2001, our Nation was attacked by radical Islamist terrorists and the long war began. It is a war different than any we have fought before because of the willingness of our enemies to attack innocent Americans at home by killing themselves. Someone else has said they hate us more than they love their own lives. But it is also a war that is similar to other long wars we have fought throughout American history in which we were pitted against a great evil, an evil that threatened not just the security of our society but the ideals and values that form the bedrock of our way of life. In the Civil War, we fought against the evil of slavery. In World War II, we fought against the evil of fascism. In the Cold War, we fought against the evil of communism, and today we are fighting a world war against the evil of Islamist terrorism. In each of these past struggles, our Nation fully mobilized. We rallied as only a free people are capable of doing. Millions and millions of citizens bound together, shoulder to shoulder in defense of our freedom, with a shared sense of service, sacrifice, and support of our troops. Our sacrifices went far beyond the battlefield, they suffused our society. In each of these past struggles I have mentioned, those Americans who were not asked to put on a uniform nonetheless shared in the burdens imposed by war. That is how democracies should go to war. Today, we find ourselves engaged in another global struggle for freedom, a struggle that stretches from the mountains of Afghanistan to the streets of Baghdad, from the jungles of Southeast Asia to the deserts of Somalia, and from the nightclubs of Bali to the subways of London. The fact is that though our military is fully engaged in this war, most of the rest of America is not. Five years after September 11, very little has been asked of most of the American people. Instead of mobilizing as a nation, the burden of this war has fallen disproportionately on the few, on our soldiers, our brave men and women in uniform. They are the ones who have put their lives on the line so that freedom may prevail. In this Chamber and across our land, there have been great differences of opinion about how we should pursue the war in Iraq, but there has been great unity of opinion that our troops there should be honored. We must support them. That has become a common banner under which all of us have rallied time and again. We support our troops. We say it on the floor of this Chamber almost every day. We support our troops. We say it on television and radio. We support our troops. We put it on the bumpers of our cars. We support our troops. But I ask my colleagues, can we honestly say we really have done all we can and should to support our troops? I think the answer is clear: No, we can't. We have not. Look at the facts. Our Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the breaking point, short on personnel, training, and equipment. Our Navy has fallen dangerously below 300 ships. Our Air Force is forced to cut 57,000 people in uniform in the next 5 years. Everybody in this Chamber knows--and all Americans know, too--about the terrible conditions of Walter Reed's Building 18 and the larger crisis in health care for our soldiers and our veterans lurking just beneath it. No one can possibly look at our troops and our veterans today and feel satisfied that we are doing all we should to support them. I know some say these problems are only temporary, that once we leave Iraq, everything is going to be fine for our troops and our military. But this war is not just about Iraq; it is a global conflict with Islamist extremists who have declared war on most of the rest of the world. Even if the war in Iraq ended tomorrow and all our troops could magically be withdrawn, tens of thousands of our soldiers will still be needed in Afghanistan, throughout the Middle East, in the Balkans, in the Horn of Africa, and everywhere else freedom is being challenged. Even if the war in Iraq ended tomorrow, our military would still be twice as busy as it was during the Cold War, confronting the inhumane and brutal threat of radical Islam and guarding against the rise of a hostile superpower elsewhere in the world. Let me put the matter I am discussing in the context of American history, the history of America at war, and the extent to which our Government has mobilized and our people have shared the sacrifice. During the Second World War, our Government raised taxes, and we spent as much as 30 percent of our gross domestic product to defeat fascism and nazism. During the war in Korea, we raised taxes again and spent 14 percent of our GDP on our military. During Vietnam, we raised taxes--again because we needed to--and we spent 9 percent of our GDP on the military. Today, in the midst of a war against a brutal and unconventional enemy, in a dangerous world, we have cut taxes and are spending less than 5 percent of our gross domestic product to support our military. We need to confront the reality that the defense of freedom is not cheap. Our soldiers know that, their families know that, but we as a society don't seem to know that. We are failing to pay the full price which it is our obligation as citizens of this great democracy to pay to protect our security and our liberty. In contrast to past wars, we are failing as a society to share in shouldering the cost of this war against Islamist extremists. In his 1942 State of the Union Address, just a few weeks after the deadly surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to our Nation about the sacrifice demanded of a democracy that is sending its bravest into harm's way to defend our way of life, and I quote: ``War costs money,'' President Roosevelt said. ``That means taxes and bonds and bonds and taxes. In a word, it means an all-out war by individual effort and family effort in a united country.'' We have a responsibility in this Congress in our time to give our troops the support they need in the world war we are engaged in against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11--and attempt to do so again--and that means, and I quote Roosevelt again, ``an all-out war by individual effort and family effort in a united country.'' Every American has a responsibility to share in the burden our soldiers are now carrying in defense of our freedom. We simply must pay the cost of this war more adequately and equitably than we are today. It is not an acceptable answer to push the sacrifice of this war against terrorism onto our children and grandchildren through deficit spending, as we have been doing. It is not an acceptable answer to pay the cost of this war by squeezing some important domestic programs, as we have been doing. It is a false choice, I would argue, to suggest we must skimp at home in order to protect our security abroad. We are a great nation, a great economy, and we are capable of doing both. That was the America of Franklin Roosevelt, the America of Harry Truman, the America of John F. Kennedy, and the America of Ronald Reagan, and that must be the America of today. Of course everyone in this Chamber supports our troops. Now it is time to translate that support into national policy. It is time to put our money where our mouth is. That is why I filed an amendment to enact a support-our- troops tax to help pay for the war against radical Islam. Because we are each threatened by this inhumane enemy, each of us should contribute a little more to guarantee its defeat and our survival. The support-our-troops tax I have introduced and envision would be a progressive increase for all Americans who pay income taxes. The revenues from this tax would only be able to be spent for our troops and the care of our veterans and must be on top of any other funds that would otherwise have been appropriated for them. My amendment today and the tax increase it proposes will not weaken our resilient economy, it will not deprive the American people of the many comforts they enjoy, but it will begin to restore a sense of shared service and sacrifice to our people and a sense of fiscal responsibility to our Government. It will begin to provide all that is required by our military to achieve victory in the long war in which we are engaged. We all prefer lower taxes, but we live in a time in history that requires more than what we prefer--a moment when we must appreciate what kind of Nation we are, the blessings of liberty we enjoy, and we must understand what we must do together to preserve the security and freedom we cherish. I have decided not to ask for a vote on this amendment tomorrow. In fact, I would say that I filed it as a plea, as an opening argument to my colleagues to join together in doing what is right and necessary to give our troops and veterans the support they deserve. My purpose is to begin a legislative effort that I hope will ultimately succeed in securing the additional revenues our troops and our veterans need. We will not solve this problem today, but we cannot afford to put it off much longer. It is imperative that this Congress address the need for a genuine national mobilization, a sharing of sacrifice in order to prevail in the long war we are fighting. Let us truly put meaning in the declaration that we, each and every American, support our troops as they put their lives at risk for us. I also will offer a second amendment I have introduced, and this one I have done with Senator Collins, the ranking member of our Homeland Security Committee. It would strengthen targeted areas of our homeland security effort. In this case, I will call up this amendment at the appropriate time and hope it is accepted by unanimous consent with the support of the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee. Let me take just a moment to explain what it does. The administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 underfunds critical homeland security priorities, and while the committee resolution currently before the Senate is a major improvement over the President's request and returns key homeland security programs to their fiscal year 2007 funding levels--understand I am saying returns these programs to the levels they are funded at now, not increases them--I believe it still must be strengthened in two critical areas. This amendment I have introduced with Senator Collins would add an extra $731 million to this budget resolution for two specific grant programs. First, it would direct $400 million for grants to improve the capabilities of first responders to communicate with one another across jurisdictional and geographic lines. The remaining $331 million would go toward the Emergency Management Performance Grants Program that helps emergency managers throughout our country plan and prepare for disaster. We propose to pay for these investments with an across-the- board budget cut to administrative accounts, thereby adding nothing to the budget deficit. More, not less, must be done to strengthen an all-hazards approach to homeland security to ensure we are prepared to respond to terrorist attacks like 9/11 as well as natural disasters like Katrina. Last week, in passing S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act, the Senate voted to authorize a $3.3 billion interoperability grant program over 5 years, beginning with $400 million in fiscal year 2008, next year. This amendment that Senator Collins and I are introducing would keep that promise by enabling the appropriation of that $400 million for the advancement of a system by which our first responders can communicate with each other with certainty in a time of disaster. Similarly, the Senate, in S. 4, last week substantially increased funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grants Program to help ensure that our States and localities are prepared for all hazards. I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment so we can fulfill the promise we made to our first responders and emergency planners when we passed S. 4 last week. Mr. President, this amendment strengthens targeted areas of our homeland security effort which were neglected by the budget proposal from the White House. And while the committee resolution currently on the floor is a major improvement over the President's inadequate request, and returns key programs to their fiscal year 2007 funding levels, I believe that it still must be strengthened in this critical area. My amendment would add an extra $731 million to this budget resolution for two specific grant programs for first responders and emergency managers that will help them plan, train, exercise, prepare for, and respond to catastrophic events. I propose to pay for these new investments with an across-the-board budget cut to administrative accounts, thereby adding nothing to the Federal deficit. Mr. President, September 11, 2001 changed our lives forever. We face new threats and must prepare accordingly. But the administration's budget proposal indicates it has turned its back on the lessons of September 11, 2001. And the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent mismanaged recovery proved for all to see that we are still a nation unprepared for catastrophe. More, not less, must be done to strengthen an all-hazards approach to ensure that we are prepared to respond to terrorist attacks as well as natural disasters. The President's budget request does not reflect that imperative, which is why I proposed to the Budget Committee chairman and ranking member an additional $3.4 billion above the President's proposal. Given the financial limitations before us, however, I have decided to offer this scaled-down amendment. Of the $731 million in additional spending I am proposing, $400 million would be for grants to improve the capabilities of first responders to communicate with one another across jurisdictional and geographic lines. The remaining $331 million would be directed toward the Emergency Management Performance Grants, EMPG, Program that helps emergency managers plan and prepare for disaster. We know our first responders don't have the training, equipment, and frequently the manpower they need to do their jobs properly. Most don't even have the basic capability to communicate with one another across jurisdictional and functional lines, and the response to Hurricane Katrina showed us that, sometimes during a major catastrophe, they can't communicate at all. Yet the President's budget continues a 4-year trend in cuts to first responders--a 40-percent reduction since 2004. And the President proposes nothing at all for fiscal year 2008 to promote interoperable communications specifically. Most of my colleagues in the Senate know that a sustained Federal commitment is needed to improve the ability of our first responders to communicate with one another in the face of disaster. Unfortunately, time and again, disasters occur, and police, firefighters, and emergency medical workers are unable to exchange information with each other. Lives are lost as a result. That is what happened on 9/11. The story of the communication breakdown among New York City's first responders is well known. And it is well known because it cost the lives of some of the bravest Americans who rushed to the aid of their fellow citizens. But it occurred at each of the 9/11 disaster sites. Then came Katrina. The storm decimated communications infrastructure throughout Mississippi and Louisiana, and once again, difficulties in communicating among officials and first responders significantly impeded rescue and relief efforts. Like many of the homeland security challenges we face, achieving nationwide operability and interoperability will require significant resources. While we don't know the exact price tag, we do know the costs will be significant, which is why we created a dedicated interoperability grant program for first responders in S. 4--the Senate-passed 9/11 Commission recommendation implementation bill, also known as the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. That legislation authorizes $3.3 billion over 5 years beginning with $400 million in fiscal year 2008. The amendment I am introducing would match this amount in the budget resolution before us today. Secondly, the EMPG Program is a long-standing and effective program whose cost is shared equally between Federal and State governments. EMPG grants are an essential building block in preparing for disasters of all types. They support critical functions such as the planning, training, and exercising that undergird almost all other preparedness efforts, whether for natural disasters or acts of terrorism. EMPG grants are therefore a distinct and important complement to those homeland security grants focused primarily on preventing, preparing for and responding to terrorism. By enabling States to create better plans, EMPG grants also help ensure that the other money provided by the Federal Government is spent more effectively. The former head of the National Emergency Management Association, who also is the Director of Emergency Management for the State of Alabama, testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that having EMPG funds available for planning actually saves money for States, localities, and the Federal Government. For example, in one county in Alabama, where EMPG funds were used to develop a debris removal plan, the county was able to cut the cost in half of having debris removed after a disaster compared to other counties that did not have similar plans. If you spread those savings over millions of cubic feet of debris, the savings--of costs that would have otherwise been reimbursed by the Federal Government--really add up. In other words, the more we plan, the more efficiently we can utilize the funding that is available. Again, like the interoperability grants, the Senate has already recognized the importance of the EMPG Program in S. 4, which substantially increases the authorized funding for EMPG to help ensure that our States and localities are prepared for all hazards. We should begin to fulfill the promise of S. 4 here. Mr. President, we must learn the dual lessons of September 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked us on our shores killing 3,000 innocent civilians, and August 29, 2005, when a predicted and catastrophic hurricane leveled much of the gulf coast, causing 1,300 deaths, billions of dollars worth of damage, and untold amounts of grief. Our enemies are ruthless and choose their own battlefields, and nature will strike in unpredictable ways, year after year. Yet many of our Nation's security gaps remain wide open. There is no cheap way to be better prepared. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can fulfill the promise we made to our first responders and emergency planners when we passed S. 4 last week. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Brownback, Clinton, Durbin, and Casey, the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, or CAMRA Act. This bill is identical to S. 1902 that passed the Senate unanimously last year except that it houses our program at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Children today live and develop in a world of media. Electronic media, including DVD's, video games, digital music, the Internet, television, motion pictures, and cell phones, are now everywhere and under constant change. Research needs to keep up with the technology, from its positive impacts such as language development in children with delays, to possible adverse effects, from obesity to muscular-skeletal disorders. The CAMRA Act supports exploration and analysis on the impact of electronic media in children's and adolescents' development. Based on recommendations from a National Academy of Sciences panel, researchers will look at both the positive and negative impacts on children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical and behavioral development. Electronic media, in all its forms, influences and affects young people. It has the potential to produce benefits and harms. Numerous studies show increased aggressive behavior in children following interaction with violent video games. We need to move research beyond these studies to learn, for example, how new interactive technologies can best support and enhance traditional learning while making certain that these new technologies, and marketing increasingly targeted at children through these technologies, do not damage children's long-term health. Televisions have been common in households for half a century and television still dominates the total amount of time children devote to electronic media. One report links television viewing at an early age with later symptoms that are common in children with attention deficit disorders. However, we don't know the direct relationship, if any. Does television viewing cause attention deficits, or do children who have attention deficits find television viewing experiences more engaging than children who don't have attention problems? Or do parents of children with attention disorders let them watch more television to encourage more sitting and less hyperactive behavior? How will Internet experiences, particularly those where children move rapidly across different windows, influence attention patterns and attention problems? Can interactive media positively influence those with attention deficits? Once again, we don't know the answers. Does television cause autism? That's the title of a recent Cornell University study showing a correlation between the alarming rising incidence of autism and increases in television viewing. Again, we don't know the direct relationship, if it exists. If early television exposure does alter normal brain development, we need to understand this to protect children in the future. Half of the Nation's children live in homes with three or more televisions with access, in many cases, to hundreds of channels ranging from Fashion TV to Spike TV. The American Academy of Pediatrics discourages television watching for children under two, promoting instead other activities, for example reading together and playing, for proper brain development. Yet three in five children under one year of age watch TV, or other screen media such as DVD players, for an average of one and one-third hours a day. For four to six year olds, these numbers increase to 90 percent watching TV for an average of over two hours a day. Young people over 8 years old use electronic media, on average, for over 6 hours each day. How does this investment of time affect children's physical development, their cognitive development, or their moral values? Unfortunately, we still have very limited information about how media, particularly the newer interactive media, affect children's development. American advertisers spend $15 billion a year on marketing to children under 12, twice the amount from a decade ago. Most of the advertising to kids is for candy, soda, cereal and fast food; and most of the food brands advertising to children on TV use branded websites to market to children online. These sites most often include online games, access to the TV commercials, and encouragement for kids to contact their peers about the products. Is this affecting the health of America's children? Consider our current national health crisis where about one in six children are overweight. The number of overweight children and teenagers in the U.S. has more than tripled over the last four decades. The public, through Medicare and Medicaid, pays about $39 billion per year for medical care relating to childhood and adult obesity. In 2000, the Surgeon General estimated the total economic cost of obesity in the United States to be $117 billion. And the number of overweight children continues to increase. Beyond the enormous medical costs come later health problems and perhaps reduced life expectancies. We think that media exposure is partly the cause of this epidemic. Is it? A recent 2007 study from the Harvard Medical School found that more time for three year olds in front of a TV leads to more sugary drinks and calories. Is this true for younger and older children? Is time spent viewing screens and its accompanying sedentary lifestyles contributing to childhood and adolescent obesity? Or is the constant bombardment of advertisements for sugar-coated cereals, snack foods, and candy that pervade children's television advertisements the culprit? What will happen when junk food advertisements begin to pop-up on children's cell phones? How do the newer online forms of ``stealth marketing'', such as food products packaged with computer games, affect children's and adolescents' consumption patterns? We have more questions than answers. On another subject, many of us believe that our children are becoming increasingly materialistic. Does exposure to commercial advertising and the ``good life'' experienced by media characters partly explain materialistic attitudes? We're not sure. Recent research using brain- mapping techniques finds that an adult who sees images of desired products demonstrates patterns of brain activation that are typically associated with reaching out with a hand. How does repeatedly seeing attractive products affect our children and their developing brains? As Internet access expands from the desktop computer to other devices, including televisions, what will happen when our children will be able to click on their television screen and go directly to sites that advertise the products that they see in their favorite programs or use their cell phones to pay immediately for products marketed directly at them? Exactly what kind of values are we cultivating in our children, and what role does exposure to media content play in the development of those values? We want no child left behind in the 21st century. Many of us believe that time spent with computers is good for our children, teaching them the skills that they will need for success in the 21st century. Are we right? How is time spent with computers different from time spent with television? What are the underlying mechanisms that facilitate or disrupt children's learning from these varying media? Can academic development be fostered by the use of interactive online programs designed to teach as they entertain? In the first six years of life, Caucasian more so than African American or Latino children have Internet access from their homes. Can our newer interactive media help ensure that no child is left behind, or will disparities in access result in leaving some behind and not others? Interactive computer programs may be of enormous benefits to English language learners. In addition, electronic media can allow children with disabilities to learn, discover, and interact with others in ways not before possible. What are the best ways to help English language learners and children with various disabilities learn? The questions about how media affect the development of our children are clearly important, abundant, and complex. Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are in short supply. Such gaps in our knowledge limit our ability to make informed decisions about media policy. We know that media are important. Over the years, we have held numerous hearings in these chambers about how exposure to media violence affects childhood aggression. We passed legislation such as the Children's Television Act, which requires broadcasters to provide educational and informational television programs for children. Can we cultivate children's moral values through prosocial programs resulting from the Children's Television Act, that promote helping, sharing, and cooperating? We acted to protect our children from unfair commercial practices by passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which provides safeguards from exploitation for our youth as they explore the Internet. Yet the Internet is providing new and evolving ways to reach children with marketing, making our ability to protect our children all the more difficult. We worry about our children's inadvertent exposure to online pornography and about how that kind of exposure may undermine their moral values and standards of decency. In these halls of Congress, we acted to protect our children by passing the Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act to shield children from exposure to sexually explicit online content that is deemed harmful to minors. While we all agree that we need to protect our children from online pornography, we know very little about how to address even the most practical of questions such as how to prevent children from falling prey to adult strangers who approach them online. To ensure that we are doing our very best for our children, the behavioral and health recommendations and public policy decisions we make should be based on objective scientific research. Yet no Federal research agency has responsibility for overseeing and setting a coherent media research agenda that can guide these policy decisions. Instead, Federal agencies fund electronic media research in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in a patch work of findings that often do not span disciplines and address complex questions. We must do better than that. The bill we are introducing today remedies this problem. The CAMRA Act will provide an overarching view of media effects by establishing a program devoted to Children and Media within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This program of research, to be vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, will fund and energize a coherent program of research that illuminates the role of media in children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and behavioral development. The research will cover all forms of electronic media and will encourage research involving children of all ages--even babies and toddlers. The bill also calls for a report to Congress about the effectiveness of this research program in filling this void in our knowledge. To accomplish these goals, we are authorizing $90 million dollars to be phased in gradually across the next five years. The cost to our budget is minimal and can well result in significant savings in other budget areas. Our Nation values the positive, healthy development of our children. Our children live in the information age, and our country has one of the most powerful and sophisticated technology systems in the world. While this system entertains them, it is not always harmless entertainment. Media have the potential to facilitate the healthy growth of our children. They also have the potential to harm. We have a stake in finding out exactly what that role is. We have a responsibility to take action. Access to the knowledge that we need for informed decision-making requires us to make an investment: an investment in research, an investment in and for our children, and an investment in our collective futures. The benefits to our youth and our Nation's families are immeasurable. By passing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, we can advance knowledge and enhance the constructive effects of media while minimizing the negative ones. We can make future media policies that are grounded in solid, scientific knowledge. We can be proactive, rather than reactive. In so doing, we build a better nation for our youth, fostering the kinds of values that are the backbone of this great nation of ours, and we create a better foundation to guide future media policies about the digital experiences that pervade our children's daily lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I honor Douglas K. O'Connell, a recipient of the 2007 Rotary Paul Harris Award. The world's first service club, The Rotary Club of Chicago, IL, was formed in 1905 by Paul P. Harris, an attorney who wished to recapture in a professional club the same friendly spirit he had felt in the small towns of his youth. As Rotary grew, its mission expanded to help serve communities in need around the world. Today, 1.2 million Rotarians belong to some 32,000 Rotary clubs in more than 200 countries. Local Rotarians constantly pool their resources and contribute their talents to help serve their local communities and address such pressing issues as illiteracy, environmental degradation, world hunger, and children at risk. For over 20 years, Mr. O'Connell has donated countless hours of community service to the northwest corner of Connecticut. Through his work with the Winsted Chapter of Rotary, United Way, the YMCA, as a volunteer basketball coach, and a dedicated member of the Torrington Board of Education, Mr. O'Connell has made a longlasting impact on his community. Mr. O'Connell embodies Rotary's principal motto: ``Service Above Self.'' Mr. O'Connell, a talented attorney himself, is receiving the Paul Harris Award in appreciation of his tangible and significant assistance given for the furtherance of a better understanding and friendly relations between the peoples of the world in the true spirit of Rotary.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak against S.J. Res. 9. Today, the Senate gathers once again to debate the war in Iraq. This is a debate which has been at the center of our national politics-- indeed, of our national consciousness--for 4 years now. As everyone here knows, we are now in the thick of the battle for Baghdad, a critical battle where the outcome hangs in the balance. A new commander, GEN David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate 81 to 0 just a few weeks ago. A new strategy is being put into action, with new troops being deployed into Baghdad. The question we in the Senate now confront is simple: Will Congress give General Petraeus and his troops a chance to succeed? This joint resolution before us would deny them that chance, forcing our troops to break off the battle of Baghdad in 120 days without regard to how they are doing. Instead of providing General Petraeus with the necessary reinforcements he has requested, the reinforcements he is, indeed, counting on, this resolution would strip troops away from him in the middle of the battle. That makes no sense. It is why Eisenhower famously once said: ``Anyone who sets a deadline in war doesn't understand war.'' We need to be clear with ourselves and with the Nation. The joint resolution we are debating would impose a fixed date for the beginning of a withdrawal from Iraq. In just 120 days after this legislation would be passed, American forces would be required by law to begin redeploying out of Iraq. This would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, regardless of the opinions of our allies in Iraq and throughout the region, and regardless of whether security is then improving or deteriorating. It would bind the hands of General Petraeus, substituting the judgment of Congress today for the judgment of our military commanders, our diplomats, and our friends in the region 120 days from now. Congress has been given many great responsibilities by our Constitution, but the daily micromanagement of war is not one of them. In fact, the proponents of this resolution, as I listen to them, make no attempt to justify why 120 days from now is exactly the right time to commence a withdrawal. Perhaps that is because there is no military or strategic logic at work. This is a deadline which is as arbitrary as it is inflexible. It specifically denies a great American general, David Petraeus, the room for decisive leadership, which history tells us any successful commander must have. Surely we know better than this. Surely we cannot think this is a path to success or security. I have heard opponents of the current strategy insist that our troops should not be there ``policing a civil war.'' Well, that position, that statement would come as a surprise to the soldiers who have been serving in Bosnia and Kosovo over the past decade, first stopping and now policing a civil war--in fact, two of them. They were correctly, wisely dispatched there by a Democratic President, with the support of Democrats in Congress, the support of many of the same colleagues of mine who are today calling for this withdrawal. I ask you, my friends, what has changed? Has security worsened in Iraq since the new strategy began? Has the political situation deteriorated? Have you lost confidence in General Petraeus, whom we confirmed just a few weeks ago? I think the answer to all those questions is no. So I would ask: If we were to stop our legislative debating and maneuvering for a moment and actually look at what is happening in Baghdad right now, what would we see? We would see that sectarian fighting between Sunnis and Shiites is down in districts in Baghdad where American and Iraqi forces have entered. That is according to General Petraeus' senior counterinsurgency adviser. We would see that Muqtada al-Sadr has disappeared, that many of his top lieutenants have been arrested, and that his mighty army, which terrorized much of Baghdad for the last year, has gone to ground. We would also see signs of political progress, including the passage of the new oil law by the Iraqi Cabinet, renewed talks by Sunni insurgent leaders about reconciliation, and even word of an impending Government shakeup involving the removal of some Ministers in the current Government. Finally, if we stopped and stepped back from the debate here in Washington and looked at what is happening on the ground in Baghdad and in Iraq, in Anbar, right now, we would see that the military surge has made possible a critically important diplomatic surge, as representatives from neighboring countries gathered in Baghdad last weekend in the first of a series of such regional conferences. I don't know if this progress will lead to ultimate success in Iraq, to victory over extremism and terrorism there, to a victory for democracy and hope for an alternative path in the Arab world to the death and suicide and hatred al-Qaida offers, but I can tell you that what is happening in Iraq today certainly does not look like failure to me. In fact, it looks like some progress is being made as a result of this new strategy in Baghdad and in Anbar--preliminary but encouraging progress. So why, in the face of these developments, would the Senate possibly adopt a resolution such as this? Why, in the face of these encouraging developments that suggest this new plan might well be working, would this Chamber demand that it end? Why, just weeks after confirming General Petraeus, would this Chamber block him from carrying out the strategy he shaped and is now successfully implementing? There is only one understandable reason for Congress to impose this kind of deadline to begin a withdrawal, and that is if we were absolutely convinced the Petraeus strategy is doomed to failure. The only way a timetable for withdrawal makes sense is if there is no glimmer of hope that General Petraeus and the troops serving under him can succeed. I submit that is simply not a conclusion justified by the facts on the ground in Iraq today. We are in a long and difficult war. We know that. The price paid by our heroic soldiers and their families has been heavy. I recognize that it is a war in which we have made mistakes, some of them serious, and in which we have experienced exacerbating, heartbreaking, infuriating setbacks. It is a war that has stirred the anger and frustration of the American people, feelings that are justified. What is not justified, however, is for Congress to let the passions and politics of the moment blind us to what is happening on the ground in Iraq today and what is on the line for our security tomorrow. Our decisionmaking should be driven by the real-world conditions in Baghdad, not by the political mindset here in Washington. This joint resolution before this Chamber fails that test, and that is why it should fail to pass the Senate. General Petraeus has said he will be able to advise us, the President, the Nation, whether his plan is succeeding by the end of this summer. Until then, let me suggest an alternative course for Congress. Let me suggest we declare a truce in the Washington wars over the war in Iraq. For the next 6 months, let's let our troops and the Iraqi forces fight with our support and without us sending them mixed messages. Let us, instead, across party lines, in this Senate and in the House, come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security in the world, including in Iraq, authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines; funding the equipment and protection for our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and worldwide; monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures being followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans receive the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home. I ask my colleagues to think hard about what we are doing and what this resolution asks us to do. I ask you to look carefully, not at the public opinion polls in Washington or throughout America, but at the realities on the ground in Iraq and to think about the consequences of a forced withdrawal and failure there. I ask you to step back from this path and to vote against this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, on behalf of the Commerce Committee, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and the Senate proceed en bloc to the consideration of a series of amendments which have been cleared by the chair and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senators Inouye and Stevens.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 321 and 336 be withdrawn and that amendment No. 367 be further modified with the changes at the desk and that the amendment be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.