John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Is it true----

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia that perhaps we should for a moment discuss what happened yesterday and what we are trying to do under the leadership and initiation of Senator McConnell. Yesterday there was, as part of the $87 billion assistance package to Iraq, an amendment that was proposed which would have bestowed a specific decoration on those who fought in the Iraqi conflict. There was a provision also that prohibited others, those eligible for that medal, from being eligible for other decorations, as I understood it. Then that provision was voluntarily removed by the sponsor of the amendment. I ask my friend, isn't it a little appropriate to remember what happened? On March 12, 2003--that was a number of months ago--the President of the United States, by Executive order, which is the proper and accepted methodology for this kind of designation of awards, established the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal to be awarded to service members who serve in military operations to combat terrorism on or after September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to, actions in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, in such locations as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Republic of the Philippines, and elsewhere in Southwest Asia, in recognition of sacrifice and contribution. In addition to that, in that same Executive order, the President established the service medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal recognizing service in Operation Noble Eagle and the homeland defense mission against further terrorist attacks--for example, military duties here domestically--in providing security and much- needed service here. In other words, isn't it the Senator's understanding there were two medals? That by Executive order, following the advice of senior military and civilian defense leaders, President Bush established two different medals for men and women who have engaged in the war on terrorism since September 11? I guess what I see coming from my colleague is, if we are going to make a specific award for Iraq, shouldn't the same award be bestowed in Afghanistan? In other words, in other areas? Wouldn't, at least in the President's Executive order, the expeditionary medal and the service medal cover service literally globally? I think we might have difficulty if you gave a specific medal for Iraq, which was a dangerous mission which entailed the loss and injury of brave young Americans, but also Afghanistan is being left out. I think that was the point the Senator from Virginia and I were trying to make yesterday.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. McCAIN. I do not think I was ever considered for that.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I congratulate all of my colleagues on a very important and well- conducted debate. I strongly oppose the Bayh amendment because its enactment would undermine the central purpose of our mission in Iraq, which is to empower the Iraqi people to build a prosperous and secure future in which their country's natural resources support progressive government and economic prosperity, not additional debt payments to rich Western powers. I oppose the amendment because I believe decisions on how to finance Iraq's reconstruction should be made in Washington, not in Moscow, Paris, Berlin, or Bonn, whose leaders' decisions, if this amendment were enacted, could determine what form United States assistance takes. I cannot accept the prospect that the United States, with our British allies, who liberated Iraq, would now cede our leadership on reconstructing it to Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. Let's talk about what is at stake. Things are not going as well in Iraq as we would hope. They are not going as poorly as some would allege. In the northern part of Iraq, in the southern part of Iraq, democracy and reconstruction are proceeding apace. As I said, things are not going as well in some parts of Iraq but they are going very well in other parts. The fact is that every few days, tragically, we lose additional American lives. This is the result primarily of a concerted effort in what we know of as the Sunni triangle, of a rare combustible mixture of ex-Baathists, criminals who were released from prison, terrorists from outside the country of Iraq who have infiltrated into the country, and former military people who really know that they will never attain their goals unless the United States is driven out of Iraq. These people have done very bad things. We know all about them. We hear about them or see them every single day. What are they telling the people of Iraq? They are telling the people of Iraq the following: The United States of America is not on your side. The United States of America supported Saddam Hussein all during the 1980s. They propped up his regime, as a matter of fact. They turned a blind eye while he used weapons of mass destruction twice, once against the Iranians and once against his own people. In 1991, the Americans told the people of Iraq that Saddam Hussein was on his way out the door. That turned out not to be the case. Saddam Hussein stayed in power and slaughtered thousands of people who rose up against him in places such as Basra. In the 1990s, the Iraqi economy was crippled by economic sanctions imposed by coalitions led by the United States of America, and now the United States of America is about to do what they came for, and that is to take your oil. Now, I can rebut every single one of those arguments that these bad people are making to the people in the Sunni triangle, but, frankly, I am not there to talk to them. Nor is there much besides Al-Jazeera for them to watch. The battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is not over by a long shot, and the passage of this amendment will send a clear signal that the United States is really there for the oil as they alleged all along. The Washington Post, on October 15, 2003, stated that Iraq is already burdened with $200 billion in debt. Either much of that will be forgiven, in which case the United States reconstruction loan will prove mostly symbolic, or Iraq will struggle for years under a crushing debt burden--by the way, the estimates are that the interest on that debt is as high as $6 billion or $7 billion a year--in which case, another loan only adds to the memory. To make a loan in these circumstances is like swimming out to a drowning man and handing him a 10-pound weight. That is from the Washington Post on October 15, that well-known, conservative, right-wing periodical. I do not know who is going to volunteer to go to the donors meeting if this amendment is passed. If we go to the donors meeting and say, my dear friends, we want you to give money for Iraq but, by the way, we are only going to loan it to them, the rest of you give the money but we are going to loan it to them, I am sure there is somebody who is highly paid in the State Department who will carry out that task, but it cannot be a pleasant one because it is hypocrisy. How can we ask other countries to give money when ours is in the form of a loan? I would like to express a little sympathy for my colleagues who support this amendment. It is tough going home when people are without jobs and the economy is still stumbling along and say, we are going to give all this money to Iraq and, by the way, I know that the local highway needs to be fixed and a bridge needs to be built. It is tough, but I want to tell my colleagues what is at stake here. The reason these bad guys came from all of these other countries into Iraq, the reason the Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are doing everything they can to incite people against America, the reason we are seeing such fierce opposition in some quarters, is that they know that the day democracy flourishes in Iraq, their day is over. The day of the Middle East despot is gone. The day of the Muslim extremist is gone. No longer will the madrasahs, funded by the Saudis, function anymore to train people who are terrorists who will then sacrifice their lives as well as taking others'. The seminal event since the Vietnam war in American history is now, and there has never been more at stake. We paid a very heavy price for a long time for our failure in Vietnam. We should not pay that price here because we send a signal to the Iraqi people that our commitment to democracy and freedom is somehow contingent upon their ability to pay us back a loan which will then be gauged by the willingness of other countries. Are we going to be the Blanche DuBois of loans? Are we going to be dependent upon the generosity of others? Is it going to be Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder who determine whether we give money to the Iraqis? I don't think we should. I think this has been a fine debate. I hope we will vote to turn down this amendment. I hope we will vote to maintain the commitment we made when we sent our young men and women to fight and some to die in a conflict which is important, not only to the future of the Middle East but the future of the United States of America. I yield my time.

Mr. McCAIN. If it was up to a vote of our colleagues, I doubt I would be eligible today.

Mr. McCAIN. I note the presence of the Senator from New Mexico. I hope he was able to hear our remarks concerning our appreciation for his motivation to honor these young men and women who have served and sacrificed. We look forward to and anticipate we will continue working together on this worthy cause. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I share the view of the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Nebraska that we need more troops in the military. We have authorized that in the Defense authorization bill. I agree that there are specific needs in Iraq and our Guard and Reserves are overstressed. I believe this is not the appropriate vehicle. I believe it is an earmark of the $87 billion, and at this juncture it would take away from the flexibility that is necessary for the spending of this money. I hope we could address this issue in the fashion which it deserves both in Defense authorization and Defense appropriations bills.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, none of us understands a prohibition on a concurrent award of any other medal. This is unprecedented. Never in the history of our military has the Senate or Congress mandated the awarding of one medal or the prohibiting of an awarding of another medal. We all want to honor the men and women who have served in the military and have sacrificed. Where is it that the Senator from New Mexico gets the expertise or the knowledge to deny any medal that is judged by the leaders of the military and the President of the United States? It is very laudable to award a medal to people who served and sacrificed. Instead, the Senator from New Mexico has to complicate it to the point where the Senator from Virginia and I have to stand and say: What is this all about?

Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from New Mexico, we should be able to work this out to everyone's satisfaction, but if you insist on micromanaging to the degree of where people serve and what they are eligible for, then we will never be able to honor those men and women who serve. Why didn't the Senator from New Mexico leave this alone?

Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad this is a bicameral legislature we have because I do not think the House of Representatives would ever agree to such a thing, nor would the leaders of our military. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. McCAIN. So the point is, the Senator from New Mexico complicated an otherwise straightforward issue by deciding who is in what theater of war and what the war on terrorism is about. And the Senator from New Mexico should have left it alone.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan amendment. It is unwise and uncharacteristic of the greatness and strength of America and in many ways could increase the risk that we may cause to young Americans who are fighting in defense of freedom in Iraq and trying to help that country begin the process of democracy and a free society. It is an extremely difficult task and one which will require a long period of time. I don't share the view of some that the situation in Iraq is bright and wonderful. I don't agree with the opinion of some others who think that things are in a very bad state. I think progress is being made. In the northern part of Iraq there is real stability. In the southern part of Iraq there is significant progress. All you have to do is pick up a newspaper or turn on the television or radio and hear that things are not so good in some parts of the country, particularly in the area we refer to as the Sunni Triangle. Every day there is some kind of attack mounted against American troops, against installations, car bombs. Our military leaders have stated that the attacks, primarily aimed at American soldiers and installations, are becoming more and more sophisticated. In my view--and my view is shared by many others who are more expert and more knowledgeable than I--the battle for the hearts and minds-- dare I use that phrase--in Iraq is still going on. We are winning that battle in some parts of Iraq. In other parts, it is still up for grabs. Those who are the former Baathists, the terrorists, the extremists, this rather unusual combination of opponents of the United States and opponents of the democratization of Iraq, are echoing a similar theme: The United States is not in Iraq to free the Iraqi people. The United States is in Iraq for the oil. That theme is being echoed and re-echoed throughout the Middle East, not just in Iraq but in every extremist Muslim madras in the Middle East, every dictatorship, in every oppressive regime that recognizes if democracy and freedom comes to Iraq, then their days are numbered, they are through, they are finished because we can prove in Iraq that democracy and a free and open society can grow and prosper anywhere in the world, including the Middle East. Here is what they are saying. They are saying: Here is the history of the United States involvement with Iraq. All during the 1980s, the United States Government propped up Saddam Hussein and did a lot of business with him. He had a war with Iran. We took his side in the war with Iran. In 1991, in the gulf war, we defeated Saddam Hussein soundly and we told the Iraqi people that he would be gone. He wasn't gone. In fact, he went into these very same areas and slaughtered thousands of people as he reasserted his grip on power. I have seen one of the mass graves. No, Saddam Hussein, they are saying, was left in power by the United States of America and allowed to freely oppress the people of Iraq and brutally repress and murder and commit unspeakable atrocities on the Iraqi people, when the United States told the Iraqi people that he would be gone. They are also saying: Do you know why the economic conditions in Iraq were so terrible all during the 1990s? Do you know why you have an airport out here at Basra that is in mint condition but has never been used? Because of American economic sanctions imposed through the United Nations on Iraq. Now the United States finally overthrew Saddam Hussein and they are going to demand our oil. In return for money, they are going to take our oil, the oil which we need, we, the Iraqi people, in order to rebuild the infrastructure of our country. Mr. President, that argument is going to gain traction in some parts of Iraq--that the United States came for the oil and now we are asking for them to pay up. If we are concerned--and I know we all are--about the lives and safety of the young men and women serving in Iraq in the military, I can tell you this will put them in greater danger. If the opponents--this unusual combination of extremists and Baathists and terrorists, and this unusual but lethal cocktail of opponents of Iraqi freedom--are given additional propaganda, then I think it is going to be obviously very harmful to our effort to democratize and free Iraq. I ask my colleagues to consider the fact there is no possibility that the Iraqi people and government--when it comes into being--could pay back any debt in the short term. It is not possible. If we want to condition future aid at a future time on a loan, or some kind of repayment, then I think it should be discussed and debated given the climate of the times at that time. But to at this moment in time, when we still have not gained the support of the Iraqi people that we need not only to ensure further democratization and freedom of Iraq--to protect the lives of the young men and women who are serving so nobly in Iraq, let's not do it at this time. Let's reject this amendment. I don't impugn the motives or the patriotism of the sponsors of this amendment. I think it is hard to answer to our constituents why we are spending so much money there and not getting it back. I understand that and sympathize with that argument. One of my colleagues recently talked with great emotion about the loss of jobs in his State. These are all compelling problems. But I don't see how anyone could argue coherently that, at this moment, to send the wrong signal would be the right thing to do to achieve any of those goals. I repeat that the battle is still on for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We are a great and generous nation. We have proven that time after time after time. I think it is time for this body to express that generosity, that commitment--which only the United States has ever really displayed--to freedom and democracy in Iraq and tell these people we are going to do everything we can to help rebuild their country, we will help them on the road to freedom and democracy, and at the end of the day, years from now, that gratitude on the part of the Iraqi people will be displayed to us in many ways, that will far exceed any benefits that might be accrued from this being some kind of a loan that would be paid back. I hope my colleagues will understand the seriousness of this issue. It won't stop us from going about the work of securing the peace in Iraq, but it will set it back and it will send the wrong signal at the wrong time about the United States, true commitment in this country. Mr. President, too many young Americans have already made the supreme sacrifice for us to go back on that commitment now. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226 on ``The Nomination of Dora L. Irizarry to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York.'' Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, United States Senator, D- NY. Panel II: Dora L. Irizarry to be United States District Judge, for the Eastern District of New York. Panel III: Thomas Z. Hayward, Jr., Chair, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, American Bar Association, Pat Hines, Former Chair, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, American Bar Association. Panel IV: James F. Castro-Blanco, Esq., Immediate Past President, Puerto Rican Bar Association, Shearman & Sterling, New York City, New York, The Honorable Lewis L. Douglass, Justice, New York State Supreme Court, Chair, Franklin H. Williams, Commission on Minorities, The Honorable Michael L. Pesce, Presiding Justice, Appellate Term, New York State Supreme Court.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 1 at 9:30 to conduct a business meeting to consider legislation S. 1643, S. 1066, S. 1663, and S. 1669, and the nomination of Michael O. Leavitt, to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The meeting will take place in SD 406 (hearing room).

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on Climate Change.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 10 a.m., to consider a substitute to S. 1637, the ``Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act of 2003.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 1, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have begun a debate that may ultimately be more consequential than the war debate we had in this Chamber last October, which culminated in the votes of 77 Senators authorizing the President of the United States to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. A negative Senate vote last fall, before our country was committed to liberating and reconstructing Iraq, would have weakened the President's leadership and made America less secure. But a vote against reconstructing Iraq now, with 130,000 American forces on the ground, American credibility before our friends and enemies at stake, and the enormous responsibility of helping the Iraqi people rebuild their country now on our shoulders, would doom Iraq's transformation to failure, with grave consequences for the entire Middle East, and devastate American leadership in a dangerous world. An extraordinary allied military campaign in Iraq overthrew, in 3 weeks, a Baathist regime that had ruled for three decades. Americans were rightly proud not only of our military's exemplary performance, but of the cause for which they fought: ending the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime and liberating the Iraqi people from his tyrannical rule. With their liberation came an obligation: to help them restore their devastated and demoralized country until it is stable, and secure, and free, and therefore, no longer poses a threat to its people or its neighbors. That job is not close to being done. We have not yet won the peace. And we do not have time to spare. If we do not meaningfully improve services and security in Iraq over the next few months, it may be too late. The danger is that our failure to improve daily life, security, and Iraqis' participation in their own governance will erode their patience and fuel a minority's appeal for insurrection. We will risk an irreversible loss of Iraqi confidence and reinforce the efforts of extremists who seek our defeat and threaten Iraq's democratic future. That is why we have to pass this supplemental spending bill, urgently. There are two fundamental errors we could make in postwar Iraq. We could stay too long, denying Iraqi sovereignty to a proud and talented people who have the human and material resources to build a progressive and modern Arab state. We cannot repeat in Iraq the example of the Balkans, where Bosnia and Kosovo remain U.N. protectorates years after our just military intervention. Few things would inflame Iraqi and Arab opinion more than a long-term United States occupation of Iraq. But America is not an imperial nation. We will leave Iraq when our job is done, and we will leave behind an Iraq that is whole, free, and at peace. The other danger, and the greater risk, is that we leave too soon-- before basic Iraqi services are up and running, before law and order are restored, and before there is a competent, representative Iraqi government in place to answer to the Iraqi people. They key to a timely United States withdrawal from Iraq, and for the quickest restoration of Iraqi sovereignty, is to maximize our commitment now to providing the security and services that will allow the fragile institutions of democracy to take root. A serious United States investment in Iraq's future is the only way we can leave the Iraqi people and their leaders with a functioning, progressive state that will be an example for the region and a future partner and ally of the United States. Some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle accept that Iraq requires substantial and immediate reconstruction funding, but would provide that funding in the form of loans to be repaid to the United States or international financial institutions when the Iraqi economy is up and running again. This would gravely damage America's reputation and our support within Iraq. Asseting our claim to Iraq's oil revenues over the next 10 or 20 years would confirm the propaganda of our enemies and the suspicions of skeptics across the Arab world and closer to home: that this was a war for oil. It would also make it impossible for us to encourage countries like Russia, France, and Germany, which hold enormous levels of Iraqi debt from Saddam Hussein's era, to write off some of that debt in order to life its burden from the Iraqi people. Seeking control, whether directly or indirectly, over Iraq's future oil revenues would condemn Iraq to be another ward of the international community by denying the Iraqi people the key to their future prosperity. By making a claim that would prevent future oil revenues from being spent by a representative Iraqi government to meet the needs of the Iraqi people, we would impede the economic development that will be key to a moderate, progressive Iraqi politics. We would make our immediate task of reconstructing and securing Iraq much more difficult, because collateralizing Iraqi oil revenues would encourage more Iraqis to believe the message of the Baathists and terrorists who oppose us: that we are in Iraq not to help the Iraqi people build a better future but to serve our own narrow ends, at their expense. Ironically, we would also make it more difficult for American forces to leave Iraq by handicapping Iraqis' ability to reconstruct their country and govern themselves. Providing reconstruction monies in the form of a loan would seriously undermine American national interests in the Middle East. We will also debate the question of whether to divide this spending bill into military and reconstruction components. Proponents of this approach would substantially trim or vote down reconstruction funding, as if we should pay only for our troop presence in Iraq but spend little to nothing on what our troops are actually there to do: create basic security and enable restoration of services so the Iraqis can govern themselves. The reconstruction and military components of this spending request are inextricably linked. Part of the answer to the security challenges we face in Iraq is restoring basic services and empowering Iraqis to play a greater role in their own security. Voting against reconstruction funds will seriously degrade the security environment as greater numbers of frustrated Iraqis fall prey to the extremists' appeals to oppose our presence, putting our troops in greater danger and imperiling their core mission of stabilizing Iraq. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week, I asked Ambassador Paul Bremer what would happen if Congress did not pass the reconstruction portion of the President's supplemental spending request. Here is his response: ``Well, it would be directly contrary to American's interest--obviously, it would be contrary to the Iraqi people's interest, but it would be contrary to our interest, because it would create a situation of much greater insecurity. I think we would find more of the population turning against us. I think we would find more attacks on coalition forces. Eventually, Iraq would . . . recede into a situation of chaos, not dissimilar from what was experienced in Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s, and we would find another breeding ground for terrorists. So I think it's a rather grim outlook.'' I would encourage my colleagues who may be considering efforts to split this bill into military and reconstruction components in order to decrease or vote down reconstruction funding to contemplate the prospect of the kind of state collapse and civil war that destroyed Lebanon happening in Iraq as a result of our own shortsightedness. The Senate will also consider proposals to reduce tax cuts for the wealthy in order to pay for Iraqi reconstruction. I voted against the President's tax cut package in 2003, in part because the costs of this war and its aftermath were unknown at the time. But given what is at stake for the Iraqi people and for America's national interest, I cannot support proposals to raise taxes to fund our mission in Iraq. Such proposals, if not linked to the Iraq supplemental, would have merit, but were they to pass as part of this package they would endanger its passage, transforming a domestic political dispute into what would quickly become a foreign policy defeat. Our success in Iraq is too important to take that chance. This bill is not perfect. I intend to offer an amendment to provide for regular auditing of the Coalition Provisional authority's budget, and I suspect the Senate will add additional reporting requirements to better inform us about how reconstruction money is being spent. But given the urgency of our mission in Iraq, I intend to strongly support the President's budget request, oppose all amendments that could endanger its passage, and do everything I can to see that the United States honors the commitment we have entered into to help the Iraqi people stand up a legitimate, representative government that does not threaten them or their neighbors, and that is a force for good in a dangerous region. Every so often in this Chamber, we deal with an issue of such gravity that it transcends partisan divisions. Providing for Iraq's democratic future should be such an issue. I encourage my colleagues to gauge carefully the broader national interest, as we conduct what I hope is a civilized and high-minded debate. To a large extent, or choices will determine the success or failure of what I believe to be the most important foreign policy challenge in a generation. Failure to make the necessary political and financial commitment to build the new Iraq could endanger American leadership in the world, empower our enemies, and condemn Iraqis to renewed tyranny. We must act urgently to transform our military success into political victory. Passage of these supplemental funds will move us meaningfully towards that goal. Stripping reconstruction aid or providing it in the form of a loan that will incite Iraqi and Arab hostility against us will only make the job of our service men and women in Iraq harder and could doom them to failure. After all their sacrifice, and in light of the potential a free and stable Iraq holds for the future of the Middle east and America's position in the world, it would be disgraceful to turn our backs now. Iraq's transformation into a progressive Arab state could set the region that produced Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and al-Qaida on a new course in which democratic expression and economic prosperity, rather than a radicalizing mix of humiliation, poverty, and repression, define a new modernity in the Muslim world that does not express itself in ways that threaten its people or other nations. Conversely, a forced United States retreat from Iraq would be the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam. I don't make that statement lightly. I repeat: A forced United States retreat from Iraq would be the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam. Our mission in Iraq is too important to fail. But it is winnable, because an Iraqi majority shares our vision of a free and progressive Iraq. Our national interest demands that we help them realize this goal. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Wisconsin who was here before me.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Wisconsin be recognized for 10 minutes, and I be recognized for 15 minutes following that.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask my friend from Wisconsin how long he will be.