Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, to help end the growing problem of phantom traffic, today I introduce the ``Signaling Modernization Act of 2008.'' Senators Inouye, Smith, Dorgan, Thune, Pryor, and Snowe cosponsored this bill. Phantom traffic is a phone call sent over the telephone network without the identifying information carriers use to bill each other. When I call home to Alaska, that call is transmitted over several different carriers. Phone companies charge each other for the use of their networks. The funds generated by these charges are particularly important to carriers in Alaska and throughout rural America. Phantom traffic prevents carriers from collecting the funds they are owed, impacting universal service and raising rates for rural customers. It's time Congress pulled back the mask on phantom traffic to discover who or what is behind this problem that has plagued carriers for several years. The Federal Communications Commission is actively analyzing the issue, but it is time we find a solution. Yesterday the Commerce Committee heard from a member of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association from rural Missouri. He told us that 11 percent of their traffic did not have sufficient information for billing, causing them to lose about $37 per line per year. This loss of revenue makes it more difficult for rural carriers to deploy broadband. Our bill will require all calls from voice communications service providers to contain enough information to allow carriers to bill each other, including voice over internet protocol providers offering 2-way service and providers transiting the traffic between originating and terminating providers. Our bill also directs the FCC to establish rules implementing this requirement within 12 months of enactment, and gives it the authority to adopt enforcement provisions. Phantom traffic steals from rural carriers and customers. I hope Congress and the FCC will look at this issue closely and put an end to phantom traffic.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 would recognize the service and sacrifice of Filipino veterans who fought under our flag in World War II. I join my good friends and fellow World War II veterans, Senator Inouye and Senator Akaka, in supporting the restoration of veterans benefits to these heroic individuals. Filipino troops fought as American nationals, under the American flag, alongside American soldiers, and under the command of American GEN Douglas MacArthur, earning themselves the status of U.S. veterans. Like most American troops, Filipino soldiers were effectively drafted into the U.S. military. When war with Japan became imminent, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the military forces of the Philippines into the service of the U.S. Armed Forces. The President held this authority because the Philippine Islands were a U.S. possession and the power was written into our law. The position of these Filipino soldiers was similar to the thousands of courageous Alaskans who volunteered to serve in the Alaska Territorial Guard and protect Alaska before it became a state. Nearly 60 years later, in 2000, Congress determined that the service of the Alaska Territorial Guard was ``active duty'' service, making them eligible for the same veterans benefits Filipino veterans now seek. Just 10 hours after the attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, Japan invaded the Philippines. In the years of war that followed, Filipino soldiers fought alongside American troops with uncommon valor and loyalty to the United States. Stories of their heroism and sacrifice are abundant. Outnumbered by the Japanese and forced out of Manila, Filipino soldiers and U.S. troops held their ground for months before being forced to surrender on the Bataan Peninsula and in Corregidor. Nearly 80,000 Filipino and U.S. soldiers were taken prisoner and forced to walk to a prison camp over 65 miles away in what became known as the infamous ``Death March.'' As many as one in three of these men, weakened by disease and malnutrition and tortured by their captors, died before reaching their destination. After their American leader, GEN Douglas MacArthur, was ordered to Australia, thousands of Filipino guerilla soldiers continued resisting Japanese occupation for nearly 3 years. When MacArthur and allied forces returned, Filipino soldiers fought fiercely until Japan's surrender. One million Filipino combatants and noncombatants died in World War II. In comparison, approximately 400,000 U.S. troops lost their lives in all theaters of the war. As President Truman would later say of the Filipino troops: ``Their assignment was as bloody and difficult as any in which our American soldiers engaged.'' Congress should remember the vital contributions of Filipino veterans to the success of the allied forces. Their resistance distracted the Japanese in the Islands, preventing them from deploying elsewhere and possibly reaching the U.S. mainland. These soldiers bought precious time for General MacArthur to mount a successful counterstrike. After the war, the U.S. Veterans' Administration determined these service members met the definition of ``active Service'' in the U.S. Armed Forces and were eligible for full VA benefits. Under the Rescission Acts of 1946, however, many Filipino veterans' World War II service no longer qualified as `active duty' service. Congress stripped these soldiers of the benefits they had earned. Filipino veterans and their advocates have fought for the Restoration of these benefits for more than 60 years. This bill contains provisions that would restore U.S. veteran status to all Filipino World War II Veterans, increase service-connected disability compensation, and provide a reduced flat rate pension to many Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines. Nonservice-connected pension and death pension benefits are available to all qualifying U.S. veterans regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status. Many Filipino World War II veterans and their survivors have been excluded from receiving these benefits. This bill proposes a reasonable and fair way to assist to these veterans. The expense of this reduced benefit is justified by the contribution of Filipino veterans to this country. If not for their service, the fate of the United States could have been very different. For this, they should be treated as American veterans. The proposed benefit would cost only a fraction of what it would have if pensions were made available to alL Filipino veterans who were entitled. The Embassy of the Philippines claims there were 470,000 Filipino veterans after the war. Today only about 18,000 of these veterans--most in their eighties-- still survive. Filipino World War II veterans residing in the Philippines have been denied eligibility for pension benefits for more than 60 years. A pension benefit about one third the size of that available to veterans in the United States is not overly generous. I hope Congress will recognize the service of all our Filipino World War II Veterans just as we have for the Alaska Territorial Guard. It is time we show our Nation's gratitude for the role Filipino World War II veterans played in our history, fighting alongside soldiers from the U.S. and helping us secure victory over tyranny. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, for the comments he made. I do believe this is a matter of honor. I understand how some of the younger Senators might view this as being costly, but I wish to put it in perspective. As I pointed out, there were approximately 1 million Filipinos killed in action in the defense of our country in World War II. Approximately a half a million survived. Actually, during the war, as I have also pointed out, President Roosevelt said all Filipinos were subject to service in our Armed Forces; in effect, he conscripted the Filipinos to serve. Those who survived were treated at first as our veterans on the mainland. Subsequently, it was determined that those who came to our country, to the mainland, would be treated fully as veterans of all types in the country were treated. We have to remember, this was an all-male military, primarily a draftee Army of over 16 million men. First the VA determined all Filipino veterans were subject to the same laws as in the United States. If a person came to the United States as a veteran from the Philippines, he was automatically given citizenship and entitled to full benefits of all the veterans laws, including the GI bill, the right to have money to build a home, and a lot of other benefits were involved in those actions taken by Congress to try and deal with the returning veterans and help them regain their lives. Later, it was determined that those benefits would not be paid to many of those who stayed in the Philippines. We have been trying for many years to restore those payments. I commend the Senators from Hawaii for trying to do so. Actually, we had a parallel situation in the Alaska Guard. The Alaska Guard was primarily made up of Eskimos and Alaska Native people who patrolled the borders of Alaska. I remind the Senate that we have half the coastline of the United States. Those people who were in the Alaska Guard patrolled with their dogsleds without any uniforms being issued to them. It took us a period of time until we were able to recognize them, and we did so. We finally awarded those people in the National Guard their rights as veterans of the United States military forces. This is something we have to do, as far as I am concerned. The provision in this bill restores the benefits these Filipino veterans have earned. I do believe, as I pointed out the other night on the floor, the Senate should know that Senator Inouye and I went to the Philippines this year and met with some of these people. I am 85 this year and my friend is 84, and we were the youngsters at the meeting. These Filipino veterans who are surviving are our age or older. Most of them are infirm. There are 18,000 left out of the 470,000 plus, almost half a million survivors. This bill restores their benefits. How long can they last? People who have talked about the cost of this benefit I think misunderstand the situation. This is not a cost of today's economy. This is not a cost for today's taxpayers. This is a burden that should have been borne before. These people have not had these benefits during all of these years, and they have asked us now, as a matter of honor, to restore their rights before they leave this planet. I, for one, appeal to the Senate. As I said, there are now only five of us from World War II left in the Senate. When I came here, there were more than 70. There would be no question--I didn't know this actually happened, I have to tell you. We discovered a year ago, when Senator Akaka raised it, that this situation exists in the Philippines. I do believe it is an action that must be taken. These people not only now are our allies, but they have warmly supported our efforts throughout the world. I do believe to recognize the service and sacrifice of these Filipino veterans who fought under our flag in World War II is absolutely essential. These benefits are going to the heroes of the Philippines who are now surviving. Lastly, I again point out to the Senate, those who lived through that time know if they had not made this sacrifice, if they had not lost two-thirds of their men in World War II, we would not have had the time to rebuild America. We would not have had the time to bring in the forces, to train the people who finally carried the war throughout the world to two tyrants, to Hitler and to the Japanese. We have not had a world war since that time, and I do hope the world will never see another world war. But these people were the keys to the Pacific. Without them, we would have certainly been at war another couple of years at least and certainly would have seen an exchange of atomic weapons by that time. They gave us the time to survive, and I think we ought to give them their rights before they leave this planet. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me time, please?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, before the Senate now is a bill, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. It is a very important piece of legislation. It would expand a series of benefits to our veterans, including traumatic injury insurance, adapted housing grants, and burial allowances. As a veteran, I am delighted this bill is here, and I am pleased the Senate has invoked cloture so we may debate it and find a way to reach an accommodation on it with those who may find some fault with it or some matter they may wish to try to change. What I wish to address is the provisions for the Filipino veterans legislation. In this part of this bill, as far as I am concerned, we are talking about honor, the honor of the United States. In 1941, on July 26, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered all military forces of the Philippines into the service of the United States to fight the Japanese. They were a province of the United States at that time. They were not an independent nation right then. The President had the power to do that. He, in fact, conscripted all men 18 years of age and over into their military. He took them all, and they fought, they fought hard, they fought almost to the death as, really, I think any American knows who knows about the Long March and Corregidor and what it meant in terms of the time these people delayed the Japanese so we could find a way to rearm this Nation and find a way to eventually overthrow the threats of tyranny that existed as manifested in the attack of Japan on December 7, 1941. After the war, these people were recognized as veterans by our U.S. Veterans' Administration. All of the Filipinos who went into the services were entitled to full VA benefits. In 1946, Congress changed that. They said that those veterans who came to the United States would get full benefits of being in the military service but those who stayed in the Philippines would not. I think to deal with this you have to think about the fact that there were 470,000 Filipino World War II veterans still alive after the war. Millions died. Millions died in defense of our country. Yet here, today, there are 18,000 veterans still alive. My distinguished friend from Hawaii, who is chairman of our Defense Subcommittee, and I went to the Philippines recently and visited with some of them. I am the oldest Member of the Senate on my side. My good friend is, I think, the second oldest on his side of the Senate. We found ourselves junior to these people who are still there. Those men who fought over there, who are still with us now, are very much in need of our help. They deserve what this bill would give them. This benefit that this bill would extend to them is one-third the amount they would have received had they come to this country. That is what was intended to give them in the first place--one-third--taking into account really the cost of living and various other aspects of their life in the Philippines. They would get the benefits, one-third of the amount they would receive if they came to this country. If they came to this country, they would have been entitled to the veterans' benefits, to the GI bill, to all of the other benefits we gave the veterans after World War II. Do you know why Congress gave that to those veterans? Because there were too many men seeking a job. They had to take the 16 million of us who survived and spread us out over the economy. They did so by giving us benefits--training as a pilot, we could build our own home and get the money to do that, we could go to school through the GI bill. These people thought they had that right, too, but Congress cut it off in 1946. These people, who are the survivors now of that almost half-million people who survived as veterans, Filipino veterans of World War II, and who stayed in that country, those 18,000, have asked us for help, to finally be recognized once again for what they did. The cost is really minimal. The Senate will hear all kinds of estimates on the amount. But 18,000 people--the youngest age involved is 82. They are just not going to be with us that long. Anyone who gives you some estimate of billions of dollars that it is going to cost to take care of these people and give them what they were entitled to long ago--I think it is overestimating it. Again, I come back to my point. It is a matter of honor, the honor of the United States is at stake. These people put on our uniform, wore our uniform, fought with our comrades, almost to the death, all the way to Corregidor, and the survivors were denied what they should have had. If they came to the United States, they had the right to become citizens automatically. But if they stayed with their families and tried to reconstruct their country, we denied them that right, even though by staying at home they would have gotten one-third. If they got to come over here and be citizens they would have the benefits. There were no GI bills over there. If they came over here as citizens, became citizens, they had the full range of benefits. Now, I do not get excited too many times on this floor. This one, this bill, excites me. There are very few of us left from World War II. When I came to the Senate, almost every person who was a Member had served in World War II. There are five of us left now. I hope the Senate will listen to the five of us because we are united. We say this is a wrong that has to be rectified. We urge the Senate not to change this bill, to support the bill that has been introduced by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii and his colleague with my cosponsorship.

Mr. STEVENS. I wish to address another matter, as I have a moment. I understand there is no time limit now; is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. He said this: The transatlantic alliance is, of course, a product of historical connection, culture, language and tradition. But most of all it is an alliance of belief, of shared values, of a common outlook not just about nations and their common interest but about humanity and its common destiny. Out of the travails of the twentieth century, the alliance drew its history and its strength. In the fight against fascism, and communism, it confronted and defeated totalitarian ideology. Millions of our citizens died for the victory. Through their sacrifice, we gained our freedom. More than that, we came to a profound understanding about what it is to be free. We realized through the pain and suffering, the difference between deferring to those in power and deciding who they are; between the rule of law and the caprice of dictatorship; between the right to speak out and the silence of the fearful. Now with those twentieth century battles over, it is tempting to think that this alliance has served its purpose. But here is the important point about it. It was never, and is not now, an alliance only of interests. It was and is an alliance of conviction. We, in the West, don't own the idea of freedom. We didn't fight for it because of the happenstance of birth in Europe or America. It is there, in the DNA of humankind. It is universal in nature and appeal. We developed it, but we didn't invent it. Now is the time to stand up for it. If we want our values to govern the twenty-first century, we must combine hard and soft power. We must show unhesitating resolution in the face of threats to our security; and we must show that our values are indeed universal, that they encompass not only freedom but justice, and not for us alone but for the world as a whole. We must show these values are global. And build alliances accordingly, starting with the renewal of our own. And we need to do it with energy and urgency. In the Middle East this is time critical. We must act now. Two things I now perceive more clearly than in office. The first is: the fundamental shift of the centre of gravity, politically and economically, to the East, to China and of course India, but more broadly to the Middle and Far Eastern nations. This evening I will focus elsewhere, but suffice it to say that we are still, in the West, not in the state of comprehension or analysis we need to be, fully to grasp this shift. China and India together will over the coming decades industrialize on a scale, and at a pace, the world has never seen before. In China especially, the implications are huge. Whatever the present controversies, a strong strategic relationship with it is vital; as it is with India. We are so much better able to fashion the terms of such a relationship if we do it in unison. That alone would justify and re- justify our alliance. This is a challenge of diplomacy and statesmanship of one kind. The other challenge arises from the security threat that occupied so much of the last years of my premiership. Today, as we meet, our armed forces face the prospect of a continuing campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope one thing unites us all. Whatever the debate about the decisions that brought us to these countries, there should be no debate about the magnificent and sustained heroism of our armed forces. British and American troops and the forces of other allied nations deserve our full support and our gratitude. But this struggle is not limited to those fields of conflict. Out in the Middle East, it is there in the activities of Hezbollah in Lebanon, of Hamas in Palestine; it is played out in the street of Arab opinion every day. It has spread across the world. More than a score of nations have suffered terror attacks in the last year, still more have foiled them. They do not include only the usual list, but Thailand, Nigeria, China itself. In the Middle East, the ideology that drives the extremism is not abating. The Annual Arab Public Opinion survey published last week was not striking simply for its specific findings but for its overall picture. The basic ideological thrust of the extremists has an impact way beyond the small number of those prepared to engage in terror. In sum, it shows an alarming number of people who buy the view that Islam is under attack from the West; the leaders to support are those like Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad who are perceived to take on the West; and there is a contrast between Governments and their people that is stark. The extremism is a tiny minority activity; the ideas, prejudices and sentiments that drive it, are not. The truth is that the roots of this global ideology are deep, far deeper than I first thought in the aftermath of September 11. I believe the eventual outcome is not in doubt. But it is possible, dangerously, to underestimate the size of this challenge. And it is possible completely to misunderstand its origins. This global ideology is based on a total perversion of the true faith of Islam. Its revolutionary rhetoric and attachment to so-called liberation movements is a sham designed to hide its profoundly reactionary and regressive character. It is totalitarian in nature and compromising with it will lead not to peace but to a ratcheting up of demands, none of which are remotely tolerable. But it plays cleverly on the insecurities and uncertainty deep within Islam. It speaks to a sense that the reason for its problems is not to be found within, but as victims of outside aggression. So today the issue hangs in the balance. The Middle East is without doubt a region in transition; but in which direction will it travel? Like it or not, we are part of the struggle. Drawn into it, Europe and America must hold together and hold firm. Not simply for our own sake, but for that of our allies within Islam. If we do not show heart, why should they? If they don't see our resolve, how much more fragile is theirs? So how is this battle won? We have to recognize that though the circumstances and conflicts of the twentieth century are very different from ours, nonetheless, one thing remains true in any time and for all time: That if under attack, there is no choice but to defend, with a vigour, determination and will, superior to those attacking us. Our opponents today think we lack this will. Indeed they are counting on it. They think that if they make the struggle long enough and savage enough, we will eventually lose heart, and our will fade. They are fanatics but they have, unfortunately, the dedication that accompanies fanaticism. We cannot permit this to happen. Where we are confronted, we confront. We stand up. And we do so for as long as it takes. This ideology now has a nation, Iran, that seeks to put itself at the head of extreme Islam. They need to know what we say, we mean and, if necessary, will do. If we exhibit this attitude, peace is more likely; because they will not miscalculate or misread our character. But if they think us weak, they will fight all the harder and risk all the more. They need to see our belief. We should not apologize for our values, but wear them with pride, proclaim their virtues loudly; show confidence; ridicule the notion that when people choose freedom this is somehow provocation to terror; and do so together, one alliance. This struggle did not begin on September 11th 2001. It isn't the fault of President Bush, of Israel, or of Western policy. The idea that we suppress Muslims in the West is utterly absurd. There is more religious freedom for Islam in London than in many Muslim countries. Madam President, I found his statement very convincing. I urge Senators to read it. Exhibit 1 Speech by the Right Honorable Tony Blair The transatlantic alliance is, of course, a product of historical connection, culture, language and tradition. But most of all it is an alliance of belief, of shared values, of a common outlook not just about nations and their common interest but about humanity and its common destiny. Out of the travails of the twentieth century, the alliance drew its history and its strength. In the fight against fascism, and communism, it confronted and defeated totalitarian ideology. Millions of our citizens died for the victory. Through their sacrifice, we gained our freedom. More than that, we came to a profound understanding about what it is to be free. We realised through the pain and suffering, the difference between deferring to those in power and deciding who they are; between the rule of law and the caprice of dictatorship; between the right to speak out and the silence of the fearful. Now with those twentieth century battles over, it is tempting to think that this alliance has served its purpose. But here is the important point about it. It was never, and is not now, an alliance only of interests. It was and is an alliance of conviction. We, in the West, don't own the idea of freedom. We didn't fight for it because of the happenstance of birth in Europe or America. It is there, in the DNA of humankind. It is universal in nature and appeal. We developed it but we didn't invent it. Now is the time to stand up for it. If we want our values to govern the twenty-first century, we must combine hard and soft power. We must show unhesitating resolution in the face of threats to our security; and we must show that our values are indeed universal, that they encompass not only freedom but justice, and not for us alone but for the world as a whole. We must show these values are global. And build alliances accordingly, starting with the renewal of our own. And we need to do it with energy and urgency. In the Middle East this is time critical. We must act now. Two things I now perceive more clearly than in office. The first is: the fundamental shift of the centre of gravity, politically and economically, to the East; to China and of course India, but more broadly to the Middle and Far Eastern nations. This evening I will focus elsewhere, but suffice it to say that we are still, in the West, not in the state of comprehension or analysis we need to be, fully to grasp this shift. China and India together will over the coming decades industrialise on a scale, and at a pace, the world has never seen before. In China especially, the implications are huge. Whatever the present controversies, a strong strategic relationship with it is vital; as it is with India. We are so much better able to fashion the terms of such a relationship if we do it in unison. That alone would justify and re-justify our alliance. This is a challenge of diplomacy and statesmanship of one kind. The other challenge arises from the security threat that occupied so much of the last years of my premiership. Today, as we meet, our armed forces face the prospect of a continuing campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope one thing unites us all. Whatever the debate about the decisions that brought us to these countries, there should be no debate about the magnificent and sustained heroism of our armed forces. British and American troops and the forces of other allied nations deserve our full support and our gratitude. But this struggle is not limited to those fields of conflict. Out in the Middle East, it is there in the activities of Hezbollah in Lebanon, of Hamas in Palestine; it is played out in the street of Arab opinion every day. It has spread across the world. More than a score of nations have suffered terror attacks in the last year, still more have foiled them. They do not include only the usual list, but Thailand, Nigeria, China itself. In the Middle East, the ideology that drives the extremism is not abating. The Annual Arab Public Opinion survey published last week was not striking simply for its specific findings--but for its overall picture. The basic ideological thrust of the extremists has an impact way beyond the small number of those prepared to engage in terror. In sum, it shows an alarming number of people who buy the view that Islam is under attack from the West; the leaders to support are those like Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad who are perceived to take on the West; and there is a contrast between Governments and their people that is stark. The extremism is a tiny minority activity; the ideas, prejudices and sentiments that drive it, are not. The truth is that the roots of this global ideology are deep, far deeper than I first thought in the aftermath of September 11. I believe the eventual outcome is not in doubt. But it is possible, dangerously, to underestimate the size of this challenge. And it is possible completely to misunderstand its origins. This global ideology is based on a total perversion of the true faith of Islam. Its revolutionary rhetoric and attachment to so-called liberation movements is a sham designed to hide its profoundly reactionary and regressive character. It is totalitarian in nature and compromising with it will lead not to peace but to a ratcheting up of demands, none of which are remotely tolerable. But it plays cleverly on the insecurities and uncertainty deep within Islam. It speaks to a sense that the reason for its problems is not to be found within, but as victims of outside aggression. So today the issue hangs in the balance. The Middle East is without doubt a region in transition; but in which direction will it travel? Like it or not, we are part of the struggle. Drawn into it, Europe and America must hold together and hold firm. Not simply for our own sake, but for that of our allies within Islam. If we do not show heart, why should they? If they don't see our resolve, how much more fragile is theirs? So how is this battle won? We have to recognise that though the circumstances and conflicts of the twentieth century are very different from ours, nonetheless, one thing remains true in any time and for all time: that if under attack, there is no choice but to defend, with a vigour, determination and will, superior to those attacking us. Our opponents today think we lack this will. Indeed they are counting on it. They think that if they make the struggle long enough and savage enough, we will eventually lose heart, and our will fade. They are fanatics but they have, unfortunately, the dedication that accompanies fanaticism. We cannot permit this to happen. Where we are confronted, we confront. We stand up. And we do so for as long as it takes. This ideology now has a nation, Iran, that seeks to put itself at the head of extreme Islam. They need to know what we say, we mean and, if necessary, will do. If we exhibit this attitude, peace is more likely; because they will not miscalculate or misread our character. But if they think us weak, they will fight all the harder and risk all the more. They need to see our belief. We should not apologise for our values, but wear them with pride, proclaim their virtues loudly; show confidence; ridicule the notion that when people choose freedom this is somehow provocation to terror; and do so together, one alliance. This struggle did not begin on September 11th, 2001. It isn't the fault of George Bush, of Israel, or of Western policy. The idea that we suppress Muslims in the West is utterly absurd. There is more religious freedom for Islam in London than in many Muslim countries. You can argue about the rights and wrongs of the military invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, but to allow for a single instant that this action justifies not simply terrorism but the idea that the West is innately hostile to Islam, only has to be contemplated, rationally, momentarily, for its nonsense to be manifest. We get rid of two brutal dictatorships; put in place a U.N. led democratic process; plus billions of dollars in aid: Where exactly is the hostility to Islam? And the only reason our troops are forced to stay is because of terror attacks carried out by this ideology in defiance of the democratically expressed wishes of the Muslim people of both countries. And if it is hard and bloody, how bizarre to blame the allied forces, there under a U.N. mandate and who are trying to keep the peace, rather than those using terror to disturb it. Yet this paradigm that it is `our' fault that this terror threat is with us, has infiltrated a large part of Middle Eastern public opinion and actually influences significantly a large part of our own. It has to be taken on. And here is the good news. The same poll shows most Muslims want peace. Most support a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine. The modern minded rulers of the successful Arab economies are also admired. People in Iran don't hate America even if its leader does. Go beneath the surface and there are allies out in the region and within Islam; people who believe strongly in their faith, but know that the twenty-first century is not about civilisations in combat but in alliance. In other words people are open to persuasion. And here is the point. To win this struggle, we must be prepared to confront; but we must also be prepared to persuade. This is a battle that can take a military or security form. But it can't be won by military or security means alone. It is a baffle of ideas. To win, we must persuade people of what we stand for and why; and we must do so in a way that answers their concerns as well as our own. We believe in freedom and democracy. We also believe in justice. We believe in equality. We believe in a fair chance for all, in opportunity that goes beyond an elite and stretches down into the core of society. That, after all, is the American dream; free not just in politics but free to achieve, to fulfil your ambition by your own efforts and hard work, to make something of yourself, to give your children a better start than you had. To win this battle, we must demonstrate these values too. That is why the Middle East peace process matters. It is the litmus test of our sincerity. We should not in any way dilute our commitment to Israel's security. We simply have to show equal commitment to justice for the Palestinians. In the coming months, we have a chance to put it on a path to peace. It will require Israel to do more to lift the burden of occupation and give the Palestinians a sense that a state is possible. It will require the Palestinians to do more to get the robust capability on security to give the Israelis a sense that a state is possible. It will require a different and better strategy for Gaza. And it will require a relentless, insistent focus on the issues, from the U.S. and the international community, macro- and micro-managing it as necessary, to get the job done. President Bush and Secretary Rice have made that commitment. This can be done. It has to be done. It is not optional. It is mandatory for success. The origin of this extremism does not lie in this dispute; but a major part of defeating it, lies in its resolution. Then, wider than this, we have to work with the modern and moderate voices within Islam to help them counter the extremism and show how faith in Islam is supremely consistent with engagement in the twenty first century, economically, politically, and culturally. There is a vast amount of toil and time and energy to be expended in building bridges, educating each other about the other, creating the civic and social networks of reconciliation. I would go further still. In Africa, we have a cause of justice which cries out to be pursued; one that is, at the same time, a moral imperative and a strategic investment; one that needs the attention of East and West. In climate change, we have an issue that demonstrates that justice is also part of the compact of responsibility between this generation and those of the future. My argument is therefore this. The struggle can be won. But it can only be won by a strategy big enough and comprehensive enough to remove the roots as well as the branches. The battle will, in the end, be won within Islam. But only if we show that our values are theirs also. The problem with so much of Western politics is that the argument is posed as one between the advocates of hard power and soft power, when the reality is, we need both. This is where America and Europe, united, should act. America has to reach out. Europe has to stand up. Not a single one of the global challenges facing us today is more easily capable of solution, if we are apart; if we let the small irritants obscure the fundamental verities; if we allow ourselves to be assailed by doubt about the value of our partnership, rather than affirm, albeit self-critically, its strengths. We need now a powerful revival of our alliance. In the world so rapidly changing around us, we cannot take a narrow view of our interests or a short-sighted view of our destiny. We can't afford to take fright at these changes and go back into isolationism. We can't avoid the challenges. But we can master them. Together. The transatlantic partnership was never just the foundation of our security. It was the foundation of our way of life. It was forged in experience of the most bitter and anguished kind. Out of it came a new Europe, a new world order, a new consensus as to how life should be lived. Today times are different. Every era is different. What is necessary is to distinguish between what endures for one time and what endures for all time. In our history, we discovered the values that endure. We learnt what really matters and what is worth fighting for. And we learnt it together. Today, the challenge to those values is different. But it is no less real. Our propensity to avow those values will shape the way the twenty first century is governed. Will these values become, as they should be, universal values, open over time to all human beings everywhere; or will they be falsely seen as the product of a bygone age? That is the question. It is fundamental. It is urgent. It is our duty to answer it.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, last evening I had the honor of attending a dinner of the Atlantic Council, and at that dinner they honored the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Honorable Tony Blair. I want to quote from his speech, and I ask unanimous consent to have his whole speech printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on this vote, I have a pair with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea.'' I withhold my vote, which is ``nay.'' Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) is necessarily absent. Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. We yield back all time. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague, Senator Pryor, and our chairman Senator Inouye, and my colleague, Senator Collins, for working so diligently on this legislation. It has been a privilege to work with them to craft this legislation which I feel will help protect the public from dangerous products and return consumer confidence to the marketplace. I recognize the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked tirelessly on this bipartisan compromise and helped this bill to reach final conclusion. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record lists of both majority and minority staff.

Mr. STEVENS. No objection.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. I will be pleased to yield that time to the Senator from Oklahoma. I only control half of the time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, under the circumstances now, I control 7\1/2\ minutes?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be laid before the Senate.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I do believe we have an agreement, Mr. President, to vote at a time certain. Does the Senator wish to postpone that vote?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, before I make my remarks on the pending amendment, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 4 minutes in morning business.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield back our time.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, 911 calls are a lifeline for those in danger and essential for our public safety personnel to respond quickly to emergencies. Public safety communications are a priority for Senator Inouye and myself as we work together on the Commerce Committee. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice recommended that a single number be established to report emergency situations. AT&T established 911 as the emergency code throughout the United States. I come to the Senate today to speak about one of my constituents, a 4-year-old named Tony Sharpe. He is a preschooler in North Pole, AK. When his mother collapsed and lost consciousness during a gallbladder attack, Tony knew to call 911 because his grandmother had sent him a children's book called, ``It's Time To Call 911: What To Do in an Emergency.'' Tony called 911 and his mother received emergency medical help. Tony proves that proper education about 911 can help save lives. As a matter of fact, Tony, again, in another emergency, his mother had called 911 when they lived at another location. Once again, he had the privilege of helping his mother. This week I had the honor of presenting the E-911 Institute's Citizen in Action Award to Tony. He sets a fine example for young people throughout the country and Alaskans are very proud of him. Heroic actions such as Tony's led Senator Clinton and me to introduce S. Res. 468. It designates April of 2008 as the National 911 Education Month to recognize the need for education about 911 and make people aware of how the system works with new technologies. Ensuring that 911 is compatible with new communications technologies is crucial to the safety and security of all Americans. The E-911 congressional caucus has worked to pass legislation to improve 911 service. Last week the Senate approved S. 428, the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act. This act will require communications services to provide customers with 911 access and establish a framework for IP-enabled voice service providers to coordinate with public safety entities. It also ensures that the next generation of 911 systems reach rural America and are available to Americans with disabilities. The Commerce Committee has worked on this bill for several years. I look forward to working with the House to send this bill to the President as soon as possible. We want to continue to ensure that our 911 system keeps up with changing communications technology and that Americans of all ages know help is only a phone call away. Amendment No. 4094 If I may, I want to say I am pleased to be here when the statement was made about the amendment of Senator Cornyn. I have been practicing law for a few years; as a matter of fact, for well over 50. I do remember several instances where we had to have counsel and expert witnesses. The difference here is, what Senator Cornyn is saying is a contingent fee arrangement as an attorney general enforces Federal law, a decision of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We want them to do that. But if they need expert witnesses or they need outside counsel, they should make an agreement with them. If they succeed and get the decision they seek, they will be entitled to recover those costs under the bill we have before us. Reasonable costs will be recovered. But a contingent fee to be charged by an outside counsel or by an expert witness means that if the attorney general is successful without regard to whether those people are used, they will get one- third, whatever it is, contingent recovery from the defendant. This bill does not contemplate that there is going to be an award of damages in the sense of a normal damage type case. This is an action authorizing the attorney general to enforce a decision and make that decision applicable immediately within his or her State. We are seeking an outreach for enforcement, not an outreach for getting damages, particularly for utilizing the services of buddy-buddy lawyers or buddy-buddy expert witnesses to get money from defendants as we seek to enforce the decisions of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I support the Cornyn amendment because I do not like the concept of contingent fees involved in expert witnesses or outside counsel when it comes to this type of enforcement of a Federal decision. It is a decision of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It should not be the basis for recovery based on contingent concepts in this matter. I do want to make certain that everybody understands the Cornyn amendment. If it is not properly drafted, I urge that it be changed so that there be no question about the right of an attorney general to recover the cost of the expert witness or recover the cost of the outside counsel if it is necessary for the attorney general to have one. But I do not want to see contingency concepts entered into this type of arrangement. I was in private practice involved in plaintiffs' litigation. I understand full well the concept of contingent fees. They have been very useful in the sense where an attorney takes on a case and represents a client and, in effect, will do so without any compensation at all if they lose. But when they win, they share in that success by having their fee based upon a contingency rather than upon an agreement based on an hourly basis or a retainment basis. But this is not that kind of situation. This is for an attorney general--an official of the State--giving them, at their request, the authority to enforce the Consumer Product Safety Commission's decisions in their State immediately rather than wait for someone to come from the Consumer Product Safety Commission to their State and take action against those who should abide by the decisions of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I support this entirely. It broadens the concept of enforcement. That is what we are seeking, that for decisions of the CPSC, to have enforcement available in 50 States immediately, if the attorneys general wish to do so. That will mean taking these toys and other things off the shelves immediately. But it is not the kind of situation that requires or should need an expert witness. Beyond that, why would someone need an outside counsel on a contingent fee to enforce what has already been decided by the CPSC? All that is necessary is action within the State giving an order to give the attorney general the authority to go take stuff off the shelf or to tell the manufacturer to cease and desist. That is not a situation that involves a normal plaintiff litigation opportunity. So I do urge particularly the lawyers in this Senate to understand what we are doing. We are not creating a contingency-type litigation field. We are only creating a situation where enforcement of the CPSC's decisions are capably extended to 50 States immediately upon a decision, which I think is going to help children. It is going to help the parents. It is not a situation that requires the employment of outside counsel or expert witnesses. But if some situation arises where it is necessary because of a challenge to the defendant, then the attorney general can employ them, can recover the amount in terms of both the attorney's fees and the expert witnesses on an agreement basis, not on a contingency basis.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is very generous for sharing his time. I have come to the floor to speak on his substitute bill. I hope the Senate realizes this is a complete substitute, and it will take the House bill and replace it for the actions that the Senate has taken through our Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor so far. While there are some portions of the House bill that are positive, and I am pleased to say we will be happy to work with them in conference. I must oppose this amendment because it would gut this entire bipartisan compromise that is now before the Senate. Consumer product safety has been before the Senate before, and we have not been able to get to this point. We have gotten to this point because Senator Pryor, Senator Inouye, Senator Collins, myself, and others have worked together to bring to the Senate a bill that has positive safety provisions that are not currently in the House bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment because what we have done in this bill will provide some very positive changes that I believe the House will be willing to accept in conference. The difficulty is this amendment would not include those additional protections. We would have to go back and start all over again in the legislative process to address the additional provisions we have added to this bill. I believe we can get through the amendment process in the next couple of days, and it is my hope we can go to conference and this bill will be sent to the President as soon as possible. I believe the country is ready for a change and a reemphasis on consumer product safety, particularly as it relates to children. I am the father of 6 children, grandfather of 11, and I hope to have more--at least grandchildren. That is supposed to be funny. I think we ought to be able to take this compromise bill to conference, and I welcome that. I promise I will confer with my colleague with regard to the changes we might make in conference, but this is not the time to end this bipartisan process. If there is one thing the Senate needs, the one thing Congress needs, it needs bipartisanship to move forward on the business we should act on during this Congress. This is a product of that, the product of a long, hard conference on a bipartisan basis. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. It is my hope the Senate will allow us to go to conference on the bill on which we worked so hard. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank Senator Pryor very much. I am involved in a series of classified briefings with Senator Inouye, but I did want to make these comments. Mr. President, this measure provides greatly needed resources and improved enforcement authority for the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And this bill has come a long way throughout this whole process. I thank Senators Pryor and Inouye for allowing me to work so closely with them to negotiate this bill. I consider it to be a solid and fair compromise position. One of the favorite parts, I believe, of being a Senator is when we have a chance to improve the lives of children. This bill contains several important provisions to improve toy safety. When a child unwraps a gift on his or her birthday, the surprise should be what the toy is, not whether the toy is unsafe. It should not have dangerous substances or unsafe parts. Under this bill, children's products would require certification that they meet all applicable safety standards. Also, the testing and certification process would be strengthened to ensure the integrity of the testing. Today, toys are not purchased the way they used to be. E-commerce allows Alaskans and many people throughout rural States the opportunity to find many products that are not on the shelves in rural towns. But it can be difficult for a parent to judge a product based on the manufacturer's description or photo of a child's toy. This bill would mandate that all Internet Web sites are labeled so that consumers are informed of any choking hazards or toys that are not suitable for children under 3 years of age. There is another provision that has been included at my request, that I think is very important to my home state of Alaska, and also to the millions of Americans who use all-terrain vehicles, ATVs, every day for work and recreation. With the popularity of the ATVs, many domestic and foreign manufacturers are producing more of these vehicles in an effort to meet increased consumer demand, and many of the new market entrants are from China or Taiwan. The ATV provision in the bill would require all persons who market and sell ATVs in the United States to meet the same stringent safety requirements that are currently followed by major ATV manufacturers producing in the United States. The provisions also would preserve the authority of the CPSC to establish additional mandatory ATV safety rules through the normal rulemaking process. I thank my colleague, Senator Pryor, and our chairman, Senator Inouye, for working so diligently on this legislation. It has been a privilege to work with them to craft a piece of legislation that will help protect the public from dangerous products and return consumer confidence in the marketplace. I look forward to working with them in the Senate to try to get this bill to conference with the House, so we can send it to the President. This is a needed bill. I have called the attention of the Senate to the ATV problem several times previously this session. I am happy this provision is included in the bill. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in late November, Senator Inouye and I traveled to the Middle East to assess the security situation there. I want to share some of the insights from our travels, especially as they relate to Iraq. We visited Tunisia, Iraq, and several other countries. We met with senior U.S. State Department, intelligence, and military leaders regarding U.S. policy in Iraq, in the Middle East, and in Europe. Our first stop was in Tunisia where we met with U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec and his staff regarding political, economic, and social conditions in Tunisia. Tunisia is a moderate Muslim country which has strongly supported women's rights. The Tunisian economy has averaged 5.6 percent growth each year, with an 80-percent level of home ownership. It is a real democracy. The United States has a close working relationship with Tunisia, including strong military-to- military contacts. Tunisia straddles the Middle East, Europe, and Africa, creating a strong interest in regional security issues, particularly concerning Iraq. During our visit, we had many discussions about the situation in Iraq and the possible impacts on the rest of the region. We have discussed many of these same issues with the Foreign Affairs Secretary of State Saida Chtioui and Minister of Defense Kamel Morjane. Tunisia is interested in strengthening the foreign military financing relationship with the United States. We call that FMF. Before departing Tunisia, Senator Inouye and I presented a wreath at the U.S. North Africa American Cemetery and Memorial in Tunis. There are 2,841 American servicemen who are buried in that cemetery. It was established in 1948 and covers 27 acres. It sits near the site of the ancient Carthaginian city destroyed by the Romans in 146 B.C. and lies over part of the Roman city of Carthage. The cemetery is located in the part of Tunis that was liberated from the Germans by the British 1st Army in May of 1943. We last visited that area with Senator Hollings, who is now retired from the Senate. He made the landing there in World War II. Many of the men who were interred there gave their lives in those landings and in the occupation of Morocco and Algeria, and the subsequent fighting which ultimately liberated Tunisia. Some have seen those scenes in the recent movies that were shown of World War II. Others involved there died as a result of accidents or sickness in North Africa or while serving in the Persian Gulf command in Iran. But I want to tell the Senate it is a very impressive sight and it is touching to see how well that cemetery staff takes care of the cemetery. It is a United States military cemetery, and our visit to that cemetery left Senator Inouye and me very humbled since we were involved in World War II ourselves. We then traveled to Iraq, where we spent 2 days meeting with senior U.S. and Iraqi Government officials. We arrived at the Baghdad International Airport, formerly known as Saddam International Airport, which is located approximately 16 kilometers west of Baghdad. It has both a civil international terminal and a smaller military ramp. The Baghdad International Airport is served by a class 1 runway of 13,000 feet, and the military side has almost 9,000 feet. The military runway was bombed by coalition aircraft and closed early in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 1st Expeditionary RED HORSE Group and the 447th Expeditionary Civil Engineering Squadron helped repair the runway, and it is once again operational. It opened to commercial aircraft in 2003. It can handle 7.5 million passengers a year. I tell the Senate that because it is partially back. I think that is what I am trying to tell the Senate. Many things are returning to normal in various parts of Iraq. Baghdad International Airport has been refurbished as part of a $17.5 million contract to rebuild Iraqi airports in Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul. This project is administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Coalition forces began returning control of Baghdad International in June of 2004 with the turnover of the air traffic control tower and checkpoints. The process was concluded with the exchange of the main gate on August 25, 2004. Our major access to Baghdad is in civilian control of Iraq now. Upon arriving in Iraq, we traveled to the international zone formerly known as the Green Zone. This area in central Baghdad houses most of the city's diplomatic and Government buildings. Part of this area was Saddam Hussein's family playground, including the Presidential palace, which is now the U.S. Embassy annex, numerous villas for Saddam's family, friends, and former Baath party loyalists, along with an underground bunker which reminds one of Hitler. We were informed it was also the home to Saddam's man-eating lions, which have since been moved to Iraq's national zoo, I am happy to say. Most of our briefings took place in the Presidential palace, which, as I said, is now part of the American Embassy. We discussed the current situation in Iraq with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his key staff. Let me tell the Senate a little bit about Ambassador Crocker. He is a most impressive individual. He grew up in an Air Force family, attended schools in Morocco, Canada, Turkey, and the United States, and joined the Foreign Service in 1971. Since those early years he has served in a variety of hot spots around the world. His assignments have included Iran, Qatar, Iraq, Egypt, as well as right here in Washington, DC. He also served as U.S. Ambassador in Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, and Lebanon. This man has an impressive list of senior assignments during which he represented our country, and he is representing us very well now in Iraq. In January of 2002, Ambassador Crocker reopened the American Embassy in Kabul. In 2003, he served as the first Director of Governance for the Coalition's Provisional Authority in Baghdad. He was subsequently confirmed by this Senate as our Ambassador to Iraq on March 7, 2007. We have here a true Middle Eastern expert representing our Nation in this country. Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus are a great team. Their partnership serves our country well. I was very impressed by that team and by the Department of State officials working throughout Iraq. Whether serving in the Baghdad Embassy or in numerous provisional reconstruction teams that are now known as PRTs that are located throughout the country, they deserve much credit and they deserve our support. I was especially pleased with the progress the PRTs have made over this past year. Their efforts are important to achieving our counterinsurgency strategy by bolstering moderates, promoting reconciliation, fostering economic development, and building provincial capacity. The PRT initiative is a civilian military interagency effort that serves as the primary interface between U.S. and coalition partners and provisional and local governments throughout Iraq. They are helping Iraq develop transparency and stable provisional governments by promoting increased security, the rule of law, political and economic development, and providing the provincial administration necessary to meet the basic needs of the Iraqi population. Twenty-five PRTs serve all the provinces in Iraq. Ten full-sized teams stretching from Mosul in the north to Basra in the far south serve the majority of Iraqis. Coalition participation includes the British-led PRT in Basra, the Italian-led team in Dakar, and the Korean-led team in Erbil. The PRTs work closely with U.S. and coalition military units to strengthen provisional governments. Ten of the twenty-five teams are the new ``embedded'' PRTs, as they are called. These civilian-led teams work hand in glove with the brigade combat teams or the U.S. Marine regiments to support the surge in Anbar Province and in the greater Baghdad area. Manning of these PRTs is diverse. Personnel represent our Department of State, USAID coalition, and the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the gulf region division of the Army Corps of Engineers, and our contract personnel. The office of Provincial Affairs within the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad provides the policy guidance and support to the overall PRT program. This program is one of the significant things we saw that has taken place in Iraq since the surge, and it has been very successful. As part of the President's new way forward, PRT personnel doubled from 300 to over 600 team members countrywide by the end of last year. The PRT's financial support comes from a variety of sources, including coalition partners and donor nations, with the majority coming from the United States, of course. Principal programs associated with PRTs include the U.S.-funded community stabilization program, the provincial reconstruction development committee program, the local governance program, the civil society program, and the Inma agribusiness program,--by the way, Inma means growth in Arabic--amounts to progress. Progress has taken place as a result of the surge. During our visit, it was announced that security conditions had improved enough to allow the drawdown of U.S. combat troops from Diyala Province. This was the first drawdown of combat forces since the surge began in 2007, and these forces will not be replaced. This redeployment without replacement reflects the overall improved security conditions within Iraq, improved capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, and the increased participation of concerned local citizens. Improved economic factors and declining tribal conflicts in the province have made the drawdown possible. I think General Petraeus's ability to reach out to the tribal leaders has contributed greatly to what we have seen in terms of the progress being made in Iraq. Diyala Province has been plagued by rampant corruption in the past. Leaders placed their ambitions ahead of the needs of the constituency. There was a lack of food, water, electricity, and fuel, and residents viewed Iraqi security forces as sectarian. Tribal conflicts divided the population. We met with some of those forces. Iraqi security forces and the government of Diyala Province worked diligently over the past 18 months to bring stability and services to that province. Acts of violence have dropped in the past year by 50 percent alone. The surge enabled the coalition and Iraqi security forces to dominate the terrain and secure the population, allowing the government to function properly and to shift focus from defense to reconstruction and providing essential services. We saw progress. That is what I am trying to say. We saw with our own eyes the progress that is taking place in Iraq since the surge. We met with Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih and his staff and personally stressed the importance of moving forward on the political reconciliation. The national Government must reconcile. We must keep in mind that Iraq's political system, though, is still in its early stages of development. Its leaders are trying to establish a government and resolve fundamental issues in the midst of continuing violence. Iraqi leaders agree political progress can be improved. However, there have been steps forward during the past several months. While the so-called benchmark legislation has been slow in terms of the national legislature, I believe that actions will flow from the laws that have been passed and those that have already been enacted. Steps are already being taken. We were encouraged by the distribution of oil revenues despite the absence of an agreement on the overall revenue-sharing law. I don't know if the Senate knows it, but many people went from Alaska to talk about our basic concept in Alaska of our system of a general fund, a basic fund where we put aside 25 percent of all of our oil revenue. That is our security for the future. We tried to convince Iraq to do something like that, and I am pleased to say they are going to do something like that. But they have a different circumstance, of course, since they have so many differences between their provinces. But the concept of working on a national basis to provide for a distribution of oil revenues throughout the provinces is still proceeding. We received an extensive briefing from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the impact of the recent military surge and the declining level of violence throughout the country. General Petraeus highlighted the success our soldiers and their Iraqi partners have had in taking control of many sanctuaries from al-Qaida in Iraq and disrupting extremist networks throughout the country. Since the surge of offensives began in June of last year, attacks and civilian deaths, we were told, have decreased by 60 percent. I believe that is progress. Iraqi security forces are having a greater impact on the battlefield. In the last year, they have added over 100,000 new soldiers and police and increased their capabilities. Senator Inouye and I met with some of the leaders of the Iraqi Army in Iraq and with heads of the police from some of the areas. I am confident they were moving as quickly to eliminate conflicts between their people, between the Sunnis and Shiites, and between the various tribes. Most important was the new role of tribal leaders in trying to bring about a peaceful situation within Iraq. In 2008, the Iraqis will add 30 additional battalions to compensate for our reduction of about one-quarter of our combat forces by the end of July. In areas of Iraq, the atmosphere resembles the spring of 2003, where many communities were feeling liberated. This time, they are feeling liberated from al-Qaida and the extremist elements that have come in after the defeat of Saddam Hussein. In many provinces Iraqis are completely in charge. In some areas, in fact, there are no coalition forces there at all. The rejection of al-Qaida and the military extremists has led to the rise of concerned local citizen groups, more than 75,000 strong, and comprised of both Sunni and Shia volunteers. These groups are helping to secure their communities, provide intelligence on the enemy and report improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and weapons caches. You should have heard some of the stories we heard about how citizens are coming forward to say where these caches are located and where the weapons are, because they have confidence in their own people, that they are going to be in charge of their own security. This move has saved the lives of countless Iraqi civilians and coalition soldiers. We discussed the overall security situation throughout the country with LTG Ray Odierno, Commander of the Multinational Corps, and his key staff. This is a photo of the meeting we had with that staff. It was an interesting briefing. Since our visit, LTG Odierno has redeployed to Fort Hood, where he has reassumed his responsibilities as the Commander of the 3rd Corps. He is a very capable individual who I believe will be assigned to more senior positions, and we will hear a lot from this officer in the future. We flew to forward operating base Kalsu, south of Baghdad, where we met with the commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division, COL Michael Garrett, and his senior staff. This is a photo the Senator and I had taken with him. Colonel Garret impressed us with his leadership and insights into the complexities of his mission. This 3,600-soldier brigade is home-stationed at Fort Richardson, AK. That also gave us a good reason for visiting with them. We were impressed with what they are doing. This 4/25th brigade was preparing to rotate back to Alaska. They served in Iraq for 15 months, from September 2006 to December 2007. Two years ago, there was no 4th Brigade Combat Team, Airborne, in the 25th Infantry Division, or in Alaska. Colonel Garrett and the corps of his paratroopers grew it from a battalion to a robust airborne brigade, and they deployed to Iraq after it had been literally put together in Alaska. The brigade was headquartered at forward operation base Kalsu, in Al- Hillah Province, but also worked in Babil, Karbala, and Najaf Provinces. I am not sure I like the way my helmet looks in this photo. Senator Inouye took his off before the photo. It was an interesting meeting under a tent with Army soldiers deployed in the field. Unfortunately, 53 of the 4/25th made the ultimate sacrifice while valiantly serving America in Iraq. We in Alaska will always remember them. I can tell you that along with all Alaskans we have expressed our love, admiration, and honor for their service and are doing our best to make sure their survivors are well cared for. The 1st Brigade Combat Team, Stryker, of the 25th Infantry Division also spent 15 months serving in and around Mosul. They returned home to Fort Wainwright, AK, at the end of 2006. By all accounts, they did a tremendous job providing security in that region of Iraq. They were led by COL Mike Shields, a very capable and talented leader. We also met with senior Iraqi military and police officials from Al- Hillah Province. They agreed the security situation in this province is much improved, with the number of attacks significantly down. The mayor, army, and police leaders had a close working relationship with the Alaskan-based brigade. Before departing Iraq, we asked to see a Mine-Resistant Ambush- Protected vehicle, an MRAP. I had a photograph taken of it as I left this vehicle. It carries 6 passengers and weighs 16,000 pounds. It is the smaller and lighter version of MRAP variants and is designed for urban operations. This is the new protection for our forces. It is a category 1 vehicle used by our soldiers and marines in Iraq for mounted patrols, reconnaissance, and direct interaction with the civilian population. This is protecting our forces from the threat of IEDs, and this has saved many lives since its deployment. To date, we have fielded 2,317 of these MRAP vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are in the process of adding 9,000 or more by the end of this year, which I hope will be the end of the war. Anyway, these vehicles are good news and this shows what our country can do in a short period of time. Those other military vehicles did not have the level of protection as MRAPs. This is a survivable vehicle. I think the Senate should be congratulated for moving rapidly to get the money up and get the program up. I congratulate Senators Warner and Levin for their support in this regard. We have worked together with the Appropriations Committee and Armed Services to make sure these vehicles were supported and delivered in the shortest time in history. They were originally flown directly to Iraq. Now that significant numbers are coming off the production line, they are now going over by ship. These are the most successful vehicles for urban warfare we have ever had. We need them there. I think they will be largely responsible for completing the operations we have to finish in Iraq. I have taken a little more time than I thought I would. But the reason for my report is that my personal conclusion, from what I saw and heard, was that the surge has worked. There is still work to be done and still support we have to give these people in the field. This is no time to consider a withdrawal from Iraq under the conditions such as the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. I urge those who have any thought of such a withdrawal, a mandated withdrawal, to look at the history of the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was one of the most costly in history in terms of the deaths of the Russian soldiers who were trying to get out of that country. They turned around and literally fled from the country under difficult circumstances, where they were ordered out by their political masters without regard to the safety of the people involved. I will not participate in such a withdrawal. If we withdraw, it must be because we have finished the job and the Iraqi military and police forces can take responsibility for their own security. As Israel has done for so many years, I believe Iraq will come to be able to defend itself. We have to stay the course in order to do that. The people who were lost there deserve for us to finish the job. 47th anniversary of peace corps

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this week we mark the 47th anniversary of the U.S. Peace Corps and I ask the Senate to recognize the men and women who represent the best of America and volunteer to serve those less fortunate around the world. Since its inception in 1961, 190,000 volunteers have served in 139 countries. You may be aware our colleague Senator Dodd served in the Dominican Republic in 1968. My good friend and associate in law practice, Jack Roderick, took his family to India to serve as the Peace Corps regional director in 1967 and 1968. Jack tells me that, like many volunteers, he feels he got more out his experience than he could have ever given. His two daughters were 11 and 13 at the time and they attended Indian schools and learned to speak Hindi. The experience changed their lives. The 1,000 volunteers Jack worked with in India faced many health risks due to the difficult living conditions. But they were committed to the mission of the Peace Corps and worked with the people of India to improve the country's agricultural production. Today, 36 Peace Corps volunteers from Alaska are working in countries around the world including Mongolia, Uganda, Ecuador, Romania and Cambodia. They work directly with the people of these countries and help improve education and develop small businesses. They work with small farmers to increase food production and teach environmental conservation practices. They fight malnutrition and help provide safe drinking water. They fight the spread of HIV/AIDS and assist people affected by this disease which is devastating many developing nations. When these volunteers return home to Alaska they share their unique experiences and perspectives with their communities and help expand our understanding of places which for many of us are just a name on a map. A member of my staff, Ray Sorensen, spent 2 years in Haiti with the Peace Corps. Since he returned he has enjoyed visiting elementary schools and sharing stories, photos and Haitian music with students. This type of cultural exchange provides students with an understanding not available from their textbooks. The objective of the Peace Corps is to eventually work itself out of a job. We all hope for the day when there is no need to fight against poverty and disease and all nations enjoy the prosperity with which we are blessed. Until that time, we should support the men and women of our Peace Corps and the good work they do around the world. I congratulate the Peace Corps on its 47th anniversary and wish it continued success.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Florida for this bill as modified. I think it is a step in the right direction. I am pleased to support the bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator to modify his request to include an amendment I have at the desk which makes the bill applicable to Presidents serving on or after January 21, 2009.