Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to respond to the Senator from Arizona. Yes, the Chinese ASAT test is a threat and is particularly a threat because it could knock out our satellites, and it has left a lot of debris up there that can destroy everybody's satellites if there is a collision. If I could get the attention of the Senator from Arizona, I say to him if what he wants to do is to protect our space assets, there are other parts of the defense budget to which it should be addressed instead of the national missile defense part of the budget. There is a part that is handled under the strategic command called space situational awareness that would be more appropriate to address the issue of protecting our space assets. Most of that is highly classified and cannot be discussed here. By the Senator from Arizona wanting to put this amendment into the part about national missile defense, it takes us back to the old idea of star wars and the starting of weaponization of space. I suggest to the Senator that we can work this out, but it is not going to be able to be done right here in a few minutes on the floor, given the classified nature of a number of these programs. I urge the Senator, if his intention truly is the protection of space assets, for us to consider those other programs that are now in development and not to take his amendment to a vote, which this Senator would then have to oppose. I yield to the Senator for his response and any questions without yielding the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to be careful in what I say because under some highly classified programs, this Senator simply cannot discuss these matters. If the Senator wants to press his amendment to a vote, this Senator suggests he is not going to have the votes, and if what he is saying is he wants to protect space assets, there are programs that are being developed in this country to do exactly that. And that is all this Senator can say.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to say--and all I am allowed to say--and let me tell the Senator I don't think he has read into all of the programs--if he would so like to be, then he ought to pursue this discussion not in this open forum. I will further say the proposed space test bed in a missile defense program is a missile defense program, not a space asset protection program that the Senator from Arizona is saying it is. Therein lies the difference. If he is going to insist on pressing his question--somewhere out here we have to have some mutual trust and understanding. I cannot satisfy the Senator by virtue of me being limited in what I can tell him in this open session. So I will leave it up to the Senator as to whether he wants to press his amendment. Madam President, I need to speak on the other amendment, on Senator Vitter's and my amendment. I yield the floor for the purpose of the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, by the Senator from Arizona wanting to put this as a part of a proposed space test bed, that is clearly understood, and that is why all four of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committee bills eliminated this $10 million for the proposed space test bed because that is the initial step toward deploying space-based interceptors for missile defense. So everybody understands what that means, the space test bed is intended to deploy weapons in space. If that is not the Senator's intention, then we ought to look to this space situational awareness which is the question of us protecting assets in space.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, if I may be recognized, I will use these remarks to tell the Senate that it has been a pleasure to work with the chairman of the full committee, Senator Levin, who has consistently given this Senator free rein as the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. What it looked like last winter was that all the thorny issues of nuclear weapons and the follow-on nuclear weapons and the question of national missile defense, the strategic posture of the United States, would get us all wound up around the axle. But it didn't turn out that way, and I want to give credit to my colleague, Senator Sessions, the ranking member of our subcommittee, for working with me and the members of the committee in resolving these issues. What we worked out in subcommittee, basically, is what is in the bill. Although the administration would like to go ahead and start building national missile defense sites in Eastern Europe, the fact is, they haven't even worked it out with the countries involved in Eastern Europe. So what we did was we put a fence around any funding other than the acquisition and the preparation of the land for such a site. At the end of the day, there is going to have to be continued research and development should the need arise for locating those missiles in Eastern Europe because they are not the same version that is in the silos in Alaska. That is a three-stage version; this is a two-stage version. And it is not the same missile or rocket; therefore, it has to go through all of its subsequent testing. Now, General Obering just had a successful test a couple of days ago, and for that we want to congratulate him, but if the threat is the Shahab missile from Iran shooting into Europe or into the United States with a nuclear weapon on top of the rocket, if that is the reason to have national missile defense in Eastern Europe, well, we just simply don't know that Iran is going to have that capability. And as we continue to look at this on down the road, that is going to be an evaluation as to whether at the end of the day we are going to need that national missile defense in Eastern Europe. But since we don't know all those answers, we have provided in this bill that if they concluded the agreement with those Eastern European countries, they can go about the process of acquiring the land, the site, and the preparation of the site. We also noted in our committee that they have not had tremendous success with the airborne laser, and of the approximately $.5 billion that they wanted to continue that program, we cut that program by $200 billion and used that money elsewhere, in kinetic energy intercepts on the boost phase of an intercontinental ballistic missile. So those are just some of the things in here, and I want to thank all the parties who worked with us to get a bipartisan resolution, which is the way a Defense bill ought to be managed and ought to be passed, and we have that this year, and I am very grateful. Now, there is another part in here that Senator Levin and the ranking member of the full committee approved, and I want to thank him for that. That is the question of widows and orphans. Current law is that a servicemember pays for survivors benefits. They pay once they retire, and they pay for that benefit. It is like an insurance policy. On the other hand, there is another body of law in the Veterans' Administration where there are survivors benefits for widows and orphans. When the servicemember passes away, those two eligibilities, under current law, cancel out each other, and that is not the way we ought to be treating widows and orphans. It was no less than President Lincoln who said, in his second inaugural address, that the mark of a country is how it treats the victims of war, the widows and orphans. And taking care of the widows and orphans, in fact, is a cost of defense. It is a cost of doing business in defense. Just like you buy tanks and airplanes and guns and materiel, and so forth, taking care of not only the veterans is a cost of war, but taking care of their survivors is a cost of war too. This Nation has long canceled out those two eligibilities, and it is time for us to change this. Because we were down at the end of our discussion of this bill last week, I did not ask for a rollcall vote, as I had last year. Of course, the rollcall was something like 95 to 3 in favor of the widows and orphans, and we would have gotten some kind of a vote like that again. I was trying to accommodate my chairman and the ranking member in the crush of business, and they were kind enough to put it into the managers' package. So this will become a conference item, where it is always a question about money. A few years ago it was estimated that it would cost an additional $9 billion over 10 years. That is now down to somewhere in the range of about $7 billion or $8 billion over 10 years. So when we get into the conference committee, this Senator is going to try to find how we can get conferees to accept this provision. So I come to the floor of the Senate to congratulate Senator Levin and Senator Warner, acting in the stead of Senator McCain as the ranking member. What a pleasure it has been to deal with these gentlemen for the last 7 years as a member of this committee. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to speak on final passage of the bill. We are going to have that vote shortly. What is the parliamentary procedure we are in?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Baucus, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, this Children's Health Insurance Program is universally acknowledged as having reduced the number of uninsured children in America. As the Senator from Maine has just said, we can be very proud we have seen a landmark compromise between Republicans and Democrats. With the talks going on between the House and the Senate, this compromise legislation is going to allow us to continue coverage for millions of low-income children and to expand the coverage to millions more. It is so popular because if we can attack poor health at a child's age, ultimately, not only is it going to benefit the quality of life of that individual, but it is going to be less of a cost to society in the long run, if you can get at their root problems of health while they are young. This is a simple economic fact, preventive health care. In my previous life as the elected State treasurer and insurance commissioner in Florida, I chaired the board of directors of the Healthy Kids Corporation. It was Florida's pioneering effort to insure low-income children well before this Children's Health Insurance Program started at the Federal level. We did it through the schools. We had tremendous success. It works. So there is a collective sigh of disappointment that the President is going to refuse to accept this compromise, which is what reflects the general will, as expressed by that tremendous vote we just had a few minutes ago, allowing the bill to continue to go forward in this legislative process. The President's looming veto threat calls into sharp relief all of those who stand to lose in the absence of fully reauthorizing and expanding this CHIP program. Think back 10 years ago and what has happened since. The number of uninsured adults has increased, while the rate of low-income, uninsured children has decreased, and decreased not by a little but by a third largely due to this program we are going to pass today. These children have been afforded better access to primary and preventive care and a better quality of care. This reauthorization is going to provide $35 billion of additional funding over the next 5 years. Now, of course, that is a bone of contention for some people. If you are going out and finding $35 billion extra to fund something--at a time there is not that money out there, particularly when we are going to have a supplemental request for Iraq of some $200 billion--under that circumstance, that context, where are you going to get 35 billion new dollars over 5 years to fund a program such as this? The tobacco tax. There are those who do not want to tax tobacco. But where else would you like to get it? You cannot make it up. You cannot go and print the money. You have to get it from some legitimate place. This is the place that can withstand that additional tax. So there will be some who will vote against this program because they do not want to tax tobacco. Well, let their record be clear why they oppose this popular program. The added investment in children's health is not only necessary, it is fruitful. It is common sense. Healthy children are more likely to stay healthy as they move into adulthood. Certainly, if they are healthy, they are going to have more productive lives. On top of all this, don't we have a moral imperative to ensure that children, regardless of their parents' income, are able to have a healthy life? I think that is what makes up our moral fiber, our fabric, all of our teachings, our traditions. Our values say we want to have health care for children regardless of their parents' ability to pay. The President has argued that this expansion is going to take the CHIP program beyond its original intent of just helping poor children. Some people say it is going to be helping adults. Do I think that pregnant women--pregnant adult women--ought to be helped? I would think common sense would say yes. I believe this program would deepen and expand that initial promise which is helping those American families that struggle with those health care costs that are rising much faster than their wages. Can you imagine being a parent and watching your child have a health problem and you cannot do anything about it because you do not have the financial means to take away the pain of that health problem of your own child? Parents would get out and scrap and scrape, they would dig ditches, they would clean latrines, they would do anything for their child. But, sadly, because of the low income of some families, those children do not have that health care. Well, we can address that and correct that today. The President has also said this expansion is going to bring us down a path toward the federalization of health care. Well, that is simply not so. There is wide latitude in this law to give that latitude to the States. I believe, simply, children are too precious to be held hostage to an ideological debate. This program is more important than the rhetoric about government-run health care. By virtue of me telling you my background, obviously, this bill is very important for my State of Florida, where over 700,000 children alone are uninsured. This legislation is the best opportunity to expand that coverage to a significant portion of those 700,000 children and certainly across the land to millions of children. We have seen the success. We are aware of how many more children need to participate. I humbly urge the President to reconsider his veto threat. It is rare we have a chance to pass legislation that is so overwhelmingly positive, so completely necessary, and so morally unquestionable. I am certainly going to cast my vote in favor. I hope a resounding percentage of this Senate will do likewise so we can send a very strong message of support. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, a commitment takes a lot more than lip service and nice words to restore ecosystems, and particularly ecosystems that have been manipulated by mankind and distorted as has happened with the Florida Everglades. When I talk about commitment, I want to talk about Senator Boxer. This lady, in only a few months, after waiting for 7 years, with all other leadership flailing about and not making it happen--this lady, our chair of the Environment Committee, has made it happen and it is going to be passed. We are going to do it today, and we all hope the President will not veto it. But with the separation of powers under our constitution, we have a way of enacting law over a President's veto, and that is better than a two- thirds vote in both Houses of Congress to enact it into law despite the veto of the President. We hope we don't have to do that, but if we do, we will. Then we can set things right and we can get about the restoration. I want to tell the Senate about this incredible area known as the Everglades. This is a compendium of satellite imagery over a 4-year period. This is at the southern tip of Florida. This is Lake Okeechobee, Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Homestead, and the beginning of the Florida Keys. This is a road which was constructed in the 1920s, to get from Miami to Naples, called the Tamiami Trail. This is a road which was constructed to get from Fort Lauderdale to Naples-- Interstate 75--called Alligator Alley. This, of course, was constructed much more recently--sometime about 25 years ago--and was constructed with box culverts so that there would be proper water flows. But you can imagine, back in the 1920s they didn't think about that. When they built the Tamiami Trail, it in effect created a dike that, as the water flowed south out of Okeechobee, in the historical Mother Nature patterns, and would flow in this sheet flow to the south into Florida Bay and into the gulf of Mexico, it was suddenly stopped by this dike, which was the roadbed. So part of this bill called Modified Waters is to correct that, having additional flows come underneath and then eventually to construct a long bridge or bridges here, which will enhance the flow of the water. Why enhance the flow of the water? That is what Mother Nature intended. The water actually starts way north, just south of Orlando. It flows in a meandering stream called the Kissimmee River into Lake Okeechobee and historically spilled over out of Lake Okeechobee and flowed in a massive sheet flow in this direction, southernly and southwesterly, until the hurricanes of the 1920s, in which over 2,000 people were killed, drowned, and the whole idea was to come in and start diking and draining for flood control. But in so doing, they messed up what Mother Nature intended. About the year 2000, when the comprehensive Everglades restoration project was passed, it was to now accommodate for several different things. First of all, the water had been diverted, so that had to be changed. But the fact is that now 6 million people are living here. That wasn't the case in early Florida. And a vast agricultural industry had developed on the south end of the lake. To give the water needs to the Everglades and the Everglades National Park and to the 6 million people and to the agricultural interests--that, put together, is the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Ever since that was enacted, we have not had an authorization bill to authorize the projects to implement this plan. So I again give kudos to Senator Boxer for bringing this up and making it happen fast. What we have, then, is a major project in this bill called the Indian River Lagoon. This is the Indian River up here. I happened to grow up, as a child, on this river. At times, that and the St. Lucie River flowing into the Indian River Lagoon is like a dead river because of the excessive nutrients from lower Lake Okeechobee flowing to Tidewater. The same to the west, down the Caloosahatchee River, down to Fort Myers--excessive nutrients create a dead river. I couldn't believe it. A couple of years ago, I went out on that river right there, the St. Lucie River. First of all, there was a bright-green algae bloom. You know what that means. That means algae is sucking up the oxygen from the river, and therefore all the living things that depend on that river are not going to be there. I didn't see the mullet jumping. I didn't see the porpoises rolling. I didn't see Mr. Osprey diving into the water to get his dinner. I didn't see Mr. Eagle sitting over in the dead pine tree waiting for Mr. Osprey to catch his dinner for him. It was a dead river. That is one of the reasons for one of these major projects called the Indian River Lagoon, and that is authorized. Then we have to appropriate the money and get it done. There is another area here called the Picayune Spring. It is a highly endangered area because of the encroachment of development and the necessary waterflows. It, also, is addressed as well as what I talked about, this dike, which is the roadbed, called the Tamiami Trail. What we have is a comprehensive plan for what Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, when she wrote of her great love of these Florida Everglades, termed the ``River of Grass.'' I will conclude with this. Senator Boxer and her husband were kind enough to go down to the Everglades with me a few weeks ago. It was this incredible sight. As we glided over this river of grass in an airboat and as the Sun began to set and as the shadows lengthened, as we came out of the river of grass into the Big Cypress Preserve with these stands of cypress trees, with that little light available right at dusk, it looked as if we were in this beautiful meadow of grass with the tree stands. Suddenly, reality struck when we saw a mother doe and her two fawns--instead of bounding over the hills of the grass, they were jumping over the grass out of the water and back into the water, in this incredible place, the location of fauna and flora. The Everglades does not just affect Florida. It doesn't just affect the Western Hemisphere. Major environmental sites that are ecologically threatened affect the climate of planet Earth, our home. I am so grateful that we have this bill up and that we are going to pass it with huge numbers today. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to speak about Iraq and about this amendatory process and this legislative quagmire in which we find ourselves. The American people are having difficulty understanding why the Senate can't get anything done. It is because we have a rule that says we can't pass something here without 60 votes out of 100 Senators. We need 60 votes to close off debate on a motion for cloture. That is a fancy term for closing the debate. We have to have 60 votes. With a Senate that is so partisan, and so split ideologically, it is hard to get those 60 votes. We see this on the amendments that have already attempted to be brought, either on a motion just to proceed, which takes 60 votes, or a motion to close off debate to get to the subject matter of the amendment. We can't get the votes. Thus, the American people are increasingly frustrated, as are the Senators, that we can't get more unanimity when, in fact, most of us know in this country what has to be done. Now, what is that? What needs to be done to make the best of a very bad situation? Now, I am not talking about why we got there; that is a debate in itself which we have had innumerable times here on the floor. We are where we are. We are there. What is the goal? The goal in the best interests of the United States is to stabilize Iraq, but there is not a soul who has testified in any of these innumerable hearings who says that you can get to that goal of stability in Iraq without political reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shiites. The difficulty there is they have been at it for 1,327 years, ever since the Battle of Karbala in 680 A.D. It is very difficult for them, with all of that history, all of that hatred, to be able to reconcile into some kind of stability so that a government can, in fact, function in Iraq. So given those circumstances, what is the very best we can do? I can't tell my colleagues that I have the complete answer, but the best answer I have is the plan that was laid out unanimously last December by the Iraq Study Commission consisting of very prominent people who know the defense business and who know the foreign relations business. They unanimously recommended a gradual withdrawal and to keep enough U.S. troops there to do three things: to train the Iraqi Army, to go after al-Qaida, and to provide force protection for the Americans who are there and, at the same time, they said, have a very aggressive diplomatic effort with the other nations of the world, and especially with the nations in the region, including Syria and Iran, to try to get a political settlement and then to have that political settlement stick. Now, what should that political settlement be? Well, I am not sure anybody within the U.S. Government can tell us, but the best plan I know of is going to be offered by the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, which is to have a shared power arrangement under the Iraqi Constitution of an autonomous region--three in Iraq--with the Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center, and Shiites in the south. Now, no one has been able to come up with a better idea as to how we can have a political solution where we ultimately get to the goal of political stability with reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. Part of it is functioning right now in the north of Iraq. The Kurds virtually have their own self-government. Isn't it interesting that not one American troop has been killed in that region called Kurdistan? They have a measure of stability there. They have their own self- government. Isn't it interesting--in an area almost exclusively Sunnis in western Iraq called Al Anbar Province is where our surge with the marines has, in fact, helped because it has turned the Sunni tribal chieftains into helping us to go after al-Qaida. We have had success. Where we have not had success with the surge is in the center part, in the Baghdad region, where the Sunnis and the Shiites are going at each other. Thus, what is happening is they are voting with their feet as they are voluntarily separating, since they can't get along. I think a solution such as Senator Biden's, which he will offer as an amendment and which I will support, is the best that has come up where there would be three autonomous regions. Then there would be the national government that would represent the country in its foreign relations but at the same time would have the ability, under an Iraq oil law, to distribute the oil revenues according to the percentage of the population. I don't know anybody who has a better plan. If they do, I want to hear it. But what we need to do is to come together, Republicans and Democrats together, and get over this threshold that has us in a political and legislative and procedural straitjacket, that we can't get anything done in this Senate because we can't get 60 votes because we can't get Democrats and Republicans together to start charting the course. It is clear that the White House isn't going to do it. They have their mindset and what they want to do, but that is not ultimately going to get us to the solution. Even General Petraeus has recommended--or has testified that a year from now, we are still likely to have 140,000 troops there, with no plan of any of this political success, even though everybody who testified says you have to get political reconciliation in order to have that political success. Come on, Democratic Senators. Come on, Republican Senators. Let's get together. The amendment from Senator Biden is one we can get together on. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am proposing today and will file legislation to create a comprehensive and nationwide process for voters to select nominees every 4 years for President of the United States. This legislation will establish six Presidential primary dates--the first one in March of a Presidential election year, two in April, two in May, and one in June. Each of these contests would feature at least one State from six different regions, six geographic regions around the country. The order of States within each region would rotate every 4 years--every Presidential election. That order would be determined at the beginning by lot in order to determine the sequence. And then the next Presidential election, the ones who had gone first in March would then go to the end of the line and they would be in June, and the list would move up. It would give voters in the larger States a strong voice in selecting the nominees over that 4-month period while also giving the citizens in the smaller States a fair say, instead of the present system we have now where the small States are the ones that have an inordinate influence in selecting the nominees of the two great parties. So in this legislation, by featuring States from each of the six regions, there will be racial, ethnic, economic, and regional diversity on each of the primary dates. And, of course, it has a much more rational proposal for an agenda, in that you start in March and it concludes in June of the Presidential election year, instead of this chaotic situation we have now with States trying to get ahead of each other, with them starting now as early as the early part of January and with it being frontloaded so that, in effect, we may find the Presidential nominee decided by the middle of February. I am introducing this legislation with my colleague Senator Levin of Michigan. It is our experience as Senators from Florida and Michigan that we have seen firsthand how unfair and undemocratic our Presidential primary system has become. I might say this legislation tracks Senator Levin's brother's legislation filed in the House of Representatives, Congressman Sandy Levin. Our bill is going to try to approach a rational way of selecting the nominees for President of the United States instead of this chaotic system we have now. Now, neither bill is going to fix the current controversy we have over the sequence of the contest in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. For that, a short-term fix is certainly needed. What we have now is this chaotic situation where all the small States are trying to get ahead of each other. This certainty is needed to resolve the fix created by several States moving their 2008 primaries ahead of some of the other States. In my State, the Republican legislature of Florida--signed into law by a Republican Governor--moved the Florida primary from March to January 29. In Senator Levin's State, a Democratic legislature--signed into law by a Democratic Governor--moved its primary to January 15. What we may find is that other States may follow suit with a big jump. I have proposed to the Democratic National Committee that it allow, for this particular Presidential cycle, the traditional first-in-the- Nation States to move ahead of my State on January 29; and, instead, the party leaders have decided that Florida's votes are not going to count in the 2008 Presidential primary. The DNC said Florida's earlier primary, which was signed into law by our Governor, would alter the sequence of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. So last month, the party officials decided to strip Florida of its 210 delegates to the national convention. That means that this country's fourth largest State will have no say in picking the Democratic Presidential nominee. Well, that is simply unacceptable. Florida still has several weeks to find a solution for the DNC that it will accept; or, as I have suggested, legal action may be necessary. It is a case of fundamental rights versus the rules of a political party. And as to our right to vote, and to have that vote count, there can be no debate. I want to say that again. As to our right to vote, and to have that vote count, there can be no debate. Senator Levin and I will work hard to ensure that the controversy over the respective positions of Florida and Michigan in the primary schedule are resolved; and, for the long term, our legislation would bring order to the next and all future Presidential primary seasons. It would ensure that no one State has a disproportionate influence on the selection of the nominees. By introducing this bill today, we want to begin a broader discussion about achieving lasting reform. With the experience we have had in Florida, in the disputed Presidential election in 2000, and again 6 years later, with there having been an ``undervote'' of 18,000 votes in a congressional election in one county in Florida, Sarasota County, the sensitivity in Florida of having the right to vote and to have that ballot count, and to have that ballot count as intended, is paramount, and it is highly sensitive in the State of Florida. For a political party to punish a State for stepping out of line is the height of insensitivity in understanding that those votes are critical and that people know their sacred right of the ballot is protected. We intend to see that the right to have their votes counted, and counted as they intend, is preserved. In the meantime, we have to bring rationality to this process. The regional primary system set up in this legislation Senator Levin and I are introducing today is a suggested approach so that by the year 2012 we will have order in selecting our Presidential nominees instead of the chaos we find ourselves in now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida pertaining to the introduction of S. 2024 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am proposing today and will file legislation to create a comprehensive and nationwide process for voters to select nominees every 4 years for President of the United States. This legislation will establish six Presidential primary dates--the first one in March of a Presidential election year, two in April, two in May, and one in June. Each of these contests would feature at least one State from six different regions, six geographic regions around the country. The order of States within each region would rotate every 4 years--every Presidential election. That order would be determined at the beginning by lot in order to determine the sequence. And then the next Presidential election, the ones who had gone first in March would then go to the end of the line and they would be in June, and the list would move up. It would give voters in the larger States a strong voice in selecting the nominees over that 4-month period while also giving the citizens in the smaller States a fair say, instead of the present system we have now where the small States are the ones that have an inordinate influence in selecting the nominees of the two great parties. So in this legislation, by featuring States from each of the six regions, there will be racial, ethnic, economic, and regional diversity on each of the primary dates. And, of course, it has a much more rational proposal for an agenda, in that you start in March and it concludes in June of the Presidential election year, instead of this chaotic situation we have now with States trying to get ahead of each other, with them starting now as early as the early part of January and with it being frontloaded so that, in effect, we may find the Presidential nominee decided by the middle of February. I am introducing this legislation with my colleague Senator Levin of Michigan. It is our experience as Senators from Florida and Michigan that we have seen firsthand how unfair and undemocratic our Presidential primary system has become. I might say this legislation tracks Senator Levin's brother's legislation filed in the House of Representatives, Congressman Sandy Levin. Our bill is going to try to approach a rational way of selecting the nominees for President of the United States instead of this chaotic system we have now. Now, neither bill is going to fix the current controversy we have over the sequence of the contest in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. For that, a short-term fix is certainly needed. What we have now is this chaotic situation where all the small States are trying to get ahead of each other. This certainty is needed to resolve the fix created by several States moving their 2008 primaries ahead of some of the other States. In my State, the Republican legislature of Florida--signed into law by a Republican Governor--moved the Florida primary from March to January 29. In Senator Levin's State, a Democratic legislature--signed into law by a Democratic Governor--moved its primary to January 15. What we may find is that other States may follow suit with a big jump. I have proposed to the Democratic National Committee that it allow, for this particular Presidential cycle, the traditional first-in-the- Nation States to move ahead of my State on January 29; and, instead, the party leaders have decided that Florida's votes are not going to count in the 2008 Presidential primary. The DNC said Florida's earlier primary, which was signed into law by our Governor, would alter the sequence of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. So last month, the party officials decided to strip Florida of its 210 delegates to the national convention. That means that this country's fourth largest State will have no say in picking the Democratic Presidential nominee. Well, that is simply unacceptable. Florida still has several weeks to find a solution for the DNC that it will accept; or, as I have suggested, legal action may be necessary. It is a case of fundamental rights versus the rules of a political party. And as to our right to vote, and to have that vote count, there can be no debate. I want to say that again. As to our right to vote, and to have that vote count, there can be no debate. Senator Levin and I will work hard to ensure that the controversy over the respective positions of Florida and Michigan in the primary schedule are resolved; and, for the long term, our legislation would bring order to the next and all future Presidential primary seasons. It would ensure that no one State has a disproportionate influence on the selection of the nominees. By introducing this bill today, we want to begin a broader discussion about achieving lasting reform. With the experience we have had in Florida, in the disputed Presidential election in 2000, and again 6 years later, with there having been an ``undervote'' of 18,000 votes in a congressional election in one county in Florida, Sarasota County, the sensitivity in Florida of having the right to vote and to have that ballot count, and to have that ballot count as intended, is paramount, and it is highly sensitive in the State of Florida. For a political party to punish a State for stepping out of line is the height of insensitivity in understanding that those votes are critical and that people know their sacred right of the ballot is protected. We intend to see that the right to have their votes counted, and counted as they intend, is preserved. In the meantime, we have to bring rationality to this process. The regional primary system set up in this legislation Senator Levin and I are introducing today is a suggested approach so that by the year 2012 we will have order in selecting our Presidential nominees instead of the chaos we find ourselves in now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, both bills in front of us allow foreign-to-foreign intelligence collection without a court order. What is going to surprise you is, neither bill protects an American citizen abroad from being collected upon. Neither bill does. That protection comes in the President's Executive order. What we are going to do, hopefully, is pass one of these bills tonight, which is a temporary measure that will get us past this problem of the increased traffic that is out there and the concern of an attack. Then, with cool deliberation, we are going to have to address the problem that is omitted in both bills. Mr. President, it is my intention because of that to vote for both of the bills this evening, hoping and praying that one will pass.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, first of all, before the Senator from Utah leaves the Chamber, I want to say that I listened to him, and I appreciate his leadership. This is one of the most important programs. It was created back in 1997, when the Senator from Utah took a leading role, along with the Senator from Montana. It is truly a bipartisan program, and it is one that has met with great success. As it was created in 1997, this Senator happened to be the elected State treasurer and insurance commissioner of Florida, of which in that position I chaired the health insurance program for children that had been set up separate from this program. This program just all the more enabled us in Florida to add that many more children to receive health care, particularly health care at a time that is so important in their lives, when those little minds are beginning to learn and those little bodies are beginning to build. So I just want the two Senators on the floor to know how much I appreciate it. Since 1997, even as the percentage of uninsured adults has increased, the rate of low-income uninsured children has decreased by over a third. As a result, these insured children, in large part because of this program, have been afforded better access to primary and preventive care, better quality of care, improved health, and even improved school performance. In our State, over 300,000 children received health insurance through Medicaid or CHIP last year, and those children were able to enjoy these benefits. But over 700,000 children in Florida remain uninsured. This legislation before us is the best opportunity to expand coverage to a significant portion of those 700,000 children in Florida and millions of low-income uninsured children throughout the country. We have seen how successful this program can be, and we are aware of how many more children should be allowed to participate. So 10 years after the creation of the program, now we have the opportunity to pass this bipartisan bill that reauthorizes and further strengthens this very popular program. This legislation is bipartisan. It is going to bring health care to millions of children. While many of us in this Chamber have supported an additional $50 billion for this program, I believe the $35 billion allocated in this legislation is a fair compromise. With that money, we can still accomplish an increase of more than 3 million children newly insured under the program. I also support the inclusion of legal immigrant children and pregnant women in the program, and I was disappointed to see it was not included in this legislation. Under current law, legal immigrants who have been in this country for less than 5 years are not eligible to participate in Medicaid or CHIP, despite the fact they pay taxes to support those programs. As a result, the preventive effects of health insurance are not being realized for them. I am concerned, as so many of us are, that we are going to end up paying much more in the future for health problems that could have been treated early on. I understand there will be an amendment that will be offered to include legal--legal--immigrants in this reauthorization, and I am going to support that amendment. Now, another concern I have is a portion of the tobacco tax. It is not the tobacco tax. If you have to find a source of revenue, then this is the place to do it. But I want to emphasize the increase in the tobacco tax, as a whole, is quite appropriate as a funding mechanism for this legislation. It is going to have significant, positive impacts on health. It is going to save billions of dollars in health care costs, and it is going to reduce the prevalence of smoking among kids, whom this bill is designed to protect. But there is a portion that is not fair, and that is the tax that is applied with some inequity across product lines. Unbeknownst to most people, Florida is the largest cigar manufacturing State in the country and serves also as the main port of entry for premium handmade cigars into the United States. There are approximately 30 cigar manufacturers and importers based in Florida which employ 4,000 workers and thousands more in support industries. I hope some of these problems with the tax which cause many multiple thousands of a percentage increase in the tax on those cigars is going to be addressed in this bill, and what is not addressed in this bill can be addressed in conference. Despite some concerns, this bipartisan legislation is a strong bill with much to its credit. It will institute a more streamlined funding process and it will provide for improved child health quality measures, and will give States such as ours important opportunities for expansion. We have the opportunity to do something that is morally unassailable, and that is to expand access to health care to a significant number of low-income children. I believe this bipartisan legislation is the best way forward, and I look forward to casting my vote in favor. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to discuss this bipartisan amendment, which we overwhelmingly passed last year as an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It basically gets at one little thing that we can do to protect against the rising cost of prescription drugs. At the end of the day, what we are going to have to be able to do, on a big program such as Medicare and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we are going to have to give that negotiating power to the Federal Government, through Medicare, to negotiate, through bulk purchases, the price of the drugs in order to bring them down. Until we can get that--and we tried earlier this year and we were not successful in getting 60 votes to cut off debate. So until we can get that, we have to go at whatever avenue we can. One way is to allow citizens to order, through Canadian pharmacies, the very same drugs they get from American pharmacies. And it is not only the same drug, it is manufactured in the same place--indeed, with the same packaging. They can order from Canadian pharmacies where they get that drug, in many cases, at half the retail price they are paying in pharmacies in the United States. I am talking about not only going across the border and bringing it back, but I am talking about also being able to order by mail, by telephone, and by the Internet without having U.S. Customs intercept and confiscate these packages. We went through this whole discussion a year ago, and we pointed out the history of this program. We pointed out how Customs had gotten into it and were confiscating these packages. Yet the Acting FDA--Food and Drug Administration--Commissioner said it wasn't a safety factor if the drugs were coming from Canada. I want to underscore Canada. I didn't say another country. I said Canada--if the drugs were for the personal use of the person ordering the prescriptions, and if they were for a limited supply. And they defined that limited supply as 90 days or less--3 months. And, of course, that is what a lot of our constituents have been doing for years, and getting their prescriptions at less than half the cost. So we passed that amendment last year overwhelmingly. What happened was, the pharmaceutical lobby got hold of it when it got into the conference committee with the House and it got watered down so you could do it as long as you traveled into Canada and brought the drugs back. Well, for somebody who lives in Detroit, maybe that helps them, or somebody who lives on the northern end of any of the northern States that have a border with Canada, maybe that helps them, but it doesn't help our constituents who live elsewhere in the country, particularly in a State such as mine, Florida, where they are trying to make financial ends meet. I recall for the Senate the fact that there are senior citizens in America today who cannot afford the cost of their prescriptions and the cost of their food as well. They go in and they cut their prescription tablets in half, which, of course, does not solve their problem. So what we are trying to do is, in one little way here, to get at the cost of these drugs to be able to bring them down. What we want to do is pass this amendment. If we can get it up for a vote, it will pass the Senate. What Senator is going to say to a senior citizen: You cannot order prescription drugs from Canada at half the price. Every Senator is going to vote for it, and then we will have to protect it again when it gets down in the conference committee with the House to see that it doesn't get watered down. And we will have to protect against the putting in of such limitations as they have in the past, saying: Oh, well, the White House will approve this amendment if they make it subject to the Secretary of HHS determining that it is safe. Well, of course, they never make that determination, so, in effect, it doesn't ever happen. In point of fact, if you ask these officials privately, they will admit that it is safe because it is the same drug, made by the same manufacturer, even with the same packaging. So Senator Vitter and I will be offering this amendment later, at a time that we are allowed under the parliamentary procedure to offer it, just as we offered it last year, and I would then encourage the Senate to pass it overwhelmingly, just as we did last year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, as I had listened to some of the debate, I wondered: Do we not have the ability with a significant majority in the Senate to come together on the differences that have divided us over the course of this debate throughout the evening? I think we do, if we would take off our partisan hats, if we would take off our ideological hats. It is clear where the American people are. It is a truth you cannot sustain a war unless you have the support of the American people. This impression is not only seared into me as a result of the reading of history, but it was clearly the case when I had the privilege of wearing the uniform of the country as a lieutenant and as a captain. It was during the Vietnam era. That was clearly a time in which the people of the country were split. The big difference then and now, in the treatment of the troops, is that everybody in the country supports our troops, and every Senator does, and we are amazed at their bravery, and we stand up and repeat that over and over. That was not the case back in Vietnam. That was not the case, where returning troops, unbelievably, sometimes, were spit upon. But that is not the case now. The question is, how do you keep a bad situation from getting worse? And the question is not whether we support the troops; we do. It is the question: What is the policy set by the Government of the United States that those troops ought to be carrying out? How do we bring some kind of success out of a very bad situation? Now, the rhetoric has been hot, and it has been intense, and it has been polarizing. The Levin-Reed amendment has been characterized as though we are going to pick up and walk out of Iraq. That is not what the Levin-Reed amendment says. It says we are going to start a process of withdrawal, but troops are going to stay in Iraq to go after al- Qaida--which is clearly there now as a result of us having been there for the last 4 years--to go after al-Qaida, to provide force protection for the Americans who are there--which would also mean providing border protection--and to train the Iraqi Army. That is not a pack up and withdraw. The philosophy of the Levin-Reed amendment, which this Senator supports--and last Friday I gave the history of how I have come through all of these votes since that vote in the fall of 2002 to authorize the President to expend moneys for prosecuting a war--the question for us has been, how do we bring some success? Now, in fact, we look at this as if Iraq is monolithic. It is not. It is many different things. It is a concentration of Kurds in the north, a concentration of Sunnis, and some mixture with Shiites, in the middle, and a concentration of Shiites in the south. We are having success with the surge in the western province of al-Anbar, but that is because it is primarily Sunni, and that is because the real enemy there is al-Qaida. Indeed, the surge of the Marines is having success, slowly but having success. But remember, Iraq is many things and many faces. That is not the case in Baghdad because in Baghdad what you have is a sectarian warfare that has been going on for 1,327 years between Sunnis and Shiites that has, in effect, become a civil war. When Senator Coleman and I were in Baghdad meeting with the foreign national security adviser, Dr. al-Rubaie, before Christmas, he said: This not a sectarian war. This is Baathists trying to take back over their control. We could not believe he would make that statement when it was so obvious, and it has been so obvious, that it is Sunnis on Shiites and Shiites on Sunnis, and some Shiites on Shiites, and some Sunnis on Sunnis. In the middle of that chaos of a civil war, a surge may have a temporary appearance, but at the end of the day, it is not going to work. A surge will work in Anbar. So let's be clear that when people make extreme statements, what we are talking about is a very complicated situation. Now, do we think we are going to continue to be full bore in Iraq in another 2 years, another 3 years? Do we really think the American people are going to put up with that? No. The Levin-Reed amendment, which this Senator supports--and it took me a long time to get here, Mr. President--is a recognition of the practicality on the ground: withdrawing ourselves from the middle of a crossfire of a civil war and, instead, consolidating our positions to train the Iraqi Army, to continue to go after al-Qaida, and to provide force protection. So at the end of the day, we can all get together. You can probably have two-thirds of the Senate all coming together. One particular approach is we ought to be doing it around the Levin-Reed amendment, but it doesn't look as if we are going to. Later on down the road, the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Colorado, and I are cosponsors of another kind of amendment around which people could consolidate and unite. Sooner or later, we all are going to have to come together. Thank you.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Whatever is the pleasure of my chairman.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Of course, I yield to my distinguished chairman.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I come to this discussion of the Iraq issue from a position of having been in the political arena for 35 years. My brand of politics is moderation. My representation is generally recognized as being in the mainstream. That is clearly where my State of Florida and the majority of its politics is, in the mainstream of American politics. Since so many people like to categorize us in little boxes of where our politics is, I am generally categorized in that box as a moderate Democrat. I am here today to state why I will vote for the Levin-Reed amendment with regard to the troops in Iraq. How did I come to this conclusion? Remembering an Alfred Lloyd Tennyson poem, ``Ulysses,'' he says, ``I am a part of all that I have met.'' Certainly, my frame of reference was shaped in large part upon graduation from college, being commissioned as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve and being on active duty, first going on active duty as a 1st lieutenant and then, within a year--since that was the Vietnam era with rapid promotions--serving the second of my 2 years of active duty as a captain in the U.S. Army. Vietnam was a tough experience for our country. As I went on active duty, President Johnson had announced he was not going to run for reelection, in large part, the Nation was split asunder over the issue of support of the war. Then during my 2 years of active duty, it was the beginning of the Nixon administration, and as they tried to grapple with the war, they concluded some 4 years later that we had to start withdrawing. It was a time that certainly is different from now because there is such a respect for our troops now. That was not necessarily the case back then when I was in the military. Certainly, all the interaction I had as a military officer was the best, but that was not the case for a lot of returning soldiers. Indeed, they came home to an America that did not support them and did not stand up for them. We learned a lot of very painful lessons out of that Vietnam experience. Most of us in this Senate who have the fresh memories of that time, when we go to the Mall to the Vietnam Memorial, there is emotion that is evoked--often the emotion of choking up, as you see those almost 60,000 names and you see those dramatic statues of both the men and the women who served in Vietnam. One of the awful lessons of Vietnam is that you cannot conduct a war unless you have the support of the American people. Tragically, that is the situation we are getting to today. Today it is a lot different than Vietnam because there is outright unabashed patriotic support for our troops and the extraordinary job they are doing. But it is very clear, if you listen to the street, if you talk to your people back home, you realize the American people are not satisfied with the conduct of this war, they are not satisfied with the progress of this war, and the American people, in increasingly larger numbers, are not supporting this war. How did I come to this conclusion to support the Levin-Reed amendment? Well, back in 2003, when we voted on the authorization for this war, I voted for it, as did most of the Senators here. The information we were given at the time was clearly information that we believed--that was that there were weapons of mass destruction, there were certainly chemical and biological weapons, and we were led to believe Saddam Hussein also had a very active nuclear program. I am not talking about whispers behind the door or surreptitious notes that were passed in the night. I am talking about meeting after meeting--right up there in S. 407, the secure room in the U.S. Capitol--sometimes when 75 Senators were present, being briefed by the highest levels of the Government: The Secretary of Defense, the National Security Adviser, the head and deputy head of the CIA, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Over and over these were the impressions; indeed, the specific information that we received. Yes, I got a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate, and it was in a meeting called by our chairman, Joe Biden, who had a classified meeting to discuss it with representatives of the intelligence community. Indeed, the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, at a later meeting, confirmed what others had already briefed, that there was a program that Saddam Hussein likely had to take unmanned aerial vehicles, put biological and chemical weapons on them, put them on ships off the east coast of the United States, and launch them over east coast cities of the United States. Did I conclude there was an imminent threat to the interests of the United States by virtue of the information I was given? You bet I did. George Tenet even confirmed that after the war started, the report's veracity. What was worse--and what I was not told--was a major part of the intelligence community, the Air Force intelligence, disputed the unmanned aerial vehicles report. In fact, Air Force intelligence knew more about unmanned aerial vehicles than anybody else, and they said they were likely for reconnaissance purposes, not for offensive purposes. So knowing today what I know--that none of that was true--would I have voted the same way? Of course I wouldn't. But I voted in 2002 for the war authorization on the basis of what I was told and which I believed. In 2006, the agitation against the war continued to swell and the question came up about withdrawal. Again, I supported the administration, and I voted against a withdrawal timeline because I felt if we had a chance of success, we should not be micro-managing the military, and we should let them make their decisions. But then things started to change. At the end of the year came a big change the report of the Iraq Study Commission. Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, two of the most respected Americans, co-chaired this. Listen to names of the members of this commission who were unanimous. Larry Eagleburger, former Secretary of State. He replaced, by the way, Robert Gates, when Gates had to resign because the President was making him the Secretary of Defense. Gates was in on a lot of this Commission testimony. Listen to the rest of them. Vernon Jordan; Ed Meese, former Attorney General; Sandra Day O'Connor, everybody knows who she is; Leon Panetta, former Chief of Staff to the President; Bill Perry, former Secretary of Defense; Chuck Robb, a former colleague here; Alan Simpson, another former colleague here. These are the people who made up this Iraq Study Commission, and they came out unanimously. There were five Democrats and five Republicans. It was co-chaired by Jim Baker, the former Secretary of State, and Lee Hamilton, the former chairman of the House Committee on International Relations. They said there has to be a different way and it had to be a goal of withdrawal next spring. So when this issue came up again in the spring of 2007, I voted for the report's goal--an amendment sponsored by Senator Levin and Senator Reed--the goal of the start of a withdrawal--a partial, gradual withdrawal--not a complete withdrawal, a gradual withdrawal. The goal was April of 2008. Now the amendment has been changed, to mandate a gradual withdrawal being completed by April of next year, 2008. That doesn't mean a complete withdrawal. This amendment says is they are going to leave a good portion of the troops in Iraq to do a number of things. What are those things? First, I wish to say that, except for the requirement of a withdrawal, the Levin-Reed amendment is very similar to the Iraq Study Commission report. Senator Salazar and a host of bipartisan Senators, including this Senator, are cosponsors of Senator Salazar's amendment. The Salazar amendment gives us almost word for word the Iraq Study Commission Report. What is before us today is something similar, but instead of the goal of withdrawal by next April, it is a requirement. The Levin-Reed amendment would require the President to implement a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors. It would ensure that our troops who remain in Iraq will perform the most vital missions--that of protecting the United States and coalition personnel, training and equipping the Iraqi Army, and continuing to fight the terrorist groups, particularly al-Qaida--and it requires the President to appoint an international mediator with the authority to engage Iraq's various factions in an inclusive political process. The Iraq Study Commission report says: Get going. Do an aggressive diplomatic effort in the region. All five Republicans and five Democrats on the commission said: You ought to open up to Syria, and you ought to open up to Iran, under the theory that, indeed, we ought to be talking to our enemies. When I took off for the Middle East, about nine countries within a 2- week period before last Christmas, one of my stops was to return to Syria for a third visit with the President of Syria, Assad. The White House said don't go. The State Department came and visited me and said don't go. I said the cat is out of the bag. The bipartisan Iraq Study Commission says we have to open up and talk to enemies. That is the commonsense thing to do. I was attacked by Tony Snow in his White House daily briefing. Guess what happened? Thereafter, Secretary Rice was meeting with the Syrian Foreign Minister, the same one with whom I met, along with President Assad. It is all a part of the necessity of us engaging diplomatically in the region at the same time we are trying to figure out what to do with our military. Earlier this year, over many objections, the President then decided he needed to send more troops to Iraq in a surge, and he said it was intended to bring about greater stability. I opposed the surge. I pointed out, from my experience and understanding of Iraq, the surge would put additional American soldiers and marines in the middle of the sectarian violence crossfire of a civil war. The sectarian violence has only been going on for 1,327 years, ever since the battle of Karbala in 680 A.D. After that battle, you had, in effect, the Shiites separating from the Sunnis, and that has led to antipathy that it is hard for us in America to understand. Yet it continues. I said at the time there was a surge that I would support, and that was in Anbar Province, which is mainly Sunni and where the real enemy is al-Qaida. I believed that marines are having some success. I understand I have 1 minute left. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is there a time limit on my remarks?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I believed the marines were making progress. But there you had just Sunnis and you had al-Qaida that was trying to undermine the Sunni leadership, and the marines working with the Sunnis were having some effect. That is the part of the surge I supported. I did not support the surge going into Baghdad in the middle of the crossfire of a civil war. The President ignored the findings and the warnings of the Iraq Study Group which recommended a comprehensive strategy for changing the course in Iraq. So what has happened? In the last 6 months, we have spent more than $60 billion and we have lost another 600 American lives and many more have suffered grievous injuries. Despite those losses, the sectarian violence has only increased. Yesterday, the President reported that the Iraqi Government has failed to meet many of the benchmarks that we laid out earlier this year. Only the Iraqis can make the compromises necessary to end this war. Our continued open-ended presence has provided them with no incentive to do so. We cannot and we should not be in the middle of their civil war. What we need is a diplomatic solution with an aggressive, diplomatic effort--which was argued by the Iraq Study Group. We also need a political solution instead of a military solution. The possible solution that I am drawn to is the one put forth by Senator Biden. Under the Iraqi Constitution, which is a federal form of government, it will allow autonomy of various regions or states that can provide for their own governance along with a National Government that will allocate the oil revenues according to the population. But still, the President has not changed course in Iraq, despite the facts on the ground and the overwhelming desire of the American people. So, with a heavy heart, it brings me today to say that we must by law insist that he begin the reduction of the forces in Iraq and the transition of our mission there. Along with others, I do not reach this conclusion lightly nor with any pleasure. I am extremely concerned by the great toll that this war has taken on our Armed Forces and our military families across this Nation, with the thousands killed and many more injured. I am very concerned about the lack of training and the lack of time for recuperation for our troops, especially the National Guard and the Reserves. I am very close to the Florida National Guard. I am very concerned about the situation in Iraq, that it keeps escalating, the violence, especially among Iraqis, and the lack of their production of an economic lifeline by the production of their oil. It is being lost to theft and to sabotage. They can't get their arms around it. And I am very concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people, including now more than 2 million refugees. I am concerned about the possibility of greater regional violence and instability. I am concerned about the failure of the Maliki government, the failure of the government in and of itself, but especially, as we see now, the failure of the government to lead and to enact necessary reforms. I will conclude by saying, an open-ended commitment, keeping our troops in the middle of a civil war, is not the solution. We must not only demand that the President change course, but we must require that he do so. So I rise today in support of the Levin-Reed amendment.