Jim Webb

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I will do my best to finish within 6 minutes. I appreciate the chairman asking me to come to the floor. This issue came up fairly quickly because of the vote this morning. I was not able to be here when my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia, made his comments, but he did give me the letter that had been provided to him by the counsel to the President which addresses the issue of the constitutionality of a uniformed officer serving as a direct policy adviser inside the administration. Counsel Fielding points out in the letter that there is no constitutional issue. He mentions Generals Scowcroft, Powell, Kerrick, and Admiral Poindexter as recent examples of active-duty military officers holding this type of position. I would have risen in opposition to all of these other individuals under the circumstances that exist today, and I am going to try to clarify that. I don't expect the opposition I have to General Lute's nomination is going to preclude him from being confirmed. I don't want the record to indicate that I have any question with respect to his competence, the way he has served the country over the past 30 years or so, but I do believe this is a very important issue, and it goes beyond the opinion that was in Counsel Fielding's letter. He addresses the direct constitutionality because the military is a part of the executive branch. My difficulty is that the military must in this country remain separate from politics. That doesn't mean the President cannot bring an active-duty military person on to his staff. As Senator Warner said in another meeting, the President has the authority to bring anyone of value to his administration he wants. The question becomes: Should that individual remain in uniform? And should that individual be able to return to the active-duty military once his service is done? I asked General Lute during his confirmation hearings if he believed that the advice he would be giving in this position would be political in nature, and it unavoidably is. So we have a situation that is recent history. This type of situation does not go back long in American history where we have brought active- duty military people inside the political circle of an administration and then allowed them to return as active-duty members back to the military. This has not happened with any frequency, other than in the past 20 years or so. That individual returning to the military in a uniform unavoidably causes questions inside the military about political alignments and tends to politicize the military. That is my problem. There is no way General Lute can go to the morning meetings and give advice that is not simply operational, but that is political in nature with respect to how an administration puts a policy into place, and then can return to the active-duty military and be viewed as politically neutral. I say that again with respect to the other individuals who were named in Fred Fielding's letter. It is my intention, during the time I am in the Senate, to ask any military officer who is being put into a position of political sensitivity whether that individual intends to take the uniform off and keep it off. Any individual who otherwise is qualified who intends to return to the active-duty military service, in my opinion, is violating this very sensitive line with respect to the politicization of the military, and I intend to oppose those nominations. I thank the chairman for this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield, at this time, to the Senator from California, and then follow her, if she so desires.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to just take a few minutes this morning--I have spoken about this before--to address the motivations I have behind the amendment I have offered and to express my hopes that our colleagues will support this amendment. I have offered this amendment in the hopes of helping to save the vote on this bill. I am well aware there are a number of people in this body who would like to see this bill go down the tubes. I do not share that sentiment. There is a lot of good in this bill. We were given a briefing card yesterday, with which the Presiding Officer, I know, is also familiar, which outlines a lot of the positive aspects in this piece of legislation. It will go a long way toward toughening border security. It will, in a measurable way, toughen employer sanctions. It will create a program that, in my view, is a proper way to deal with the guest worker issue. The difficulty I have with the present legislation, and the reason I have offered my amendment, goes to the issue of legalization and the notion of fairness in terms of how the laws of the United States are applied. The second problem I have with this bill is the issue of practicality, when you look at what are called the touchback provisions. We do have, by all estimates, between 12 million and 20 million people who are here without papers. We need to be able to say, openly and honestly, the situation these people are in is a result of the fact they are here in contradiction of American law. The average American believes very strongly in the notion of fairness when it comes to how we enforce our laws. Of those 12 million to 20 million people, as I have said for more than a year, there are a significant number who have--during a period of lax immigration laws-- come to this country, become part of their community, put down roots, and deserve a path toward legalizing their status and toward citizenship. But to draw the line arbitrarily at the end of last year, to include every single person--with a few exceptions--who was here in this country as of the end of last year, I think violates the notion of fairness among a lot of people in this country. It is one of the reasons we have had such a strong surge of resentment toward the legislation as it now exists. Under my proposal, those who have lived in the United States for at least 4 years prior to the enactment of the bill can apply to legalize their status. I would like to point out that a year ago, people in this body were agreeing to a 5-year residency requirement. This bill is more generous than the legislation a lot of people in this body and also immigrants rights groups were supporting a year ago. We then would move into objective measurable criteria which would demonstrate that the people who were applying have actually put roots down in their community through a work history, through payments of Federal and State income taxes, the knowledge of English, immediate family members in the United States. These are not all inclusive. They are the sorts of criteria which would help to advance the legalization process. I believe this is fair. I believe people in this country--who traditionally would be supporting fair immigration policies but who are worried about the legalization process in this bill--would come forward and support this bill. We need that support in this country if we actually are going to solve this problem and move forward. The second part of this amendment goes to the practicality of the present legislation. It strikes the bill's unrealistic touchback requirement. For those who meet the test of having roots in their community and move forward, it removes the requirement that they have to go back to their country of origin in order to apply for legal status. We know the difficulty a lot of families would have if their principal breadwinner had to leave his or her employment, go back to Manila, or wherever, file papers, leave their family here, and interrupt their job. That is simply impracticable. In many ways, it is a totally unnecessary obstacle. So this amendment would reduce the scope of people who were allowed legalization to those who have put down roots in their communities in a very fair way that I think Americans will understand, but also would remove the unnecessary impediment of requiring people to go back to their country of origin. I have heard loudly and clearly from not only Virginians but from people across this country--when I have talked to people about this issue over the past couple of years--that this Congress should find a fair system that, on the one hand, protects American workers and, also, respects the rule of law. This amendment is the fairest method I know to do so, and to do so realistically in order to truly reform our broken immigration system. I am hopeful this amendment will get support. If this amendment succeeds, I am happy to support the final legislation. As I said, there are many good provisions in this legislation. But under the present circumstances, I think there are many people in this body who have a very difficult time, on the notions of fairness, with the widely embracing notion of all the people who are involved. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Employee Free Choice Act, S. 1041. This bill was introduced by our esteemed colleague, Senator Kennedy, along with myself and 45 other Members of the Senate. This bill takes the long overdue step of returning to workers a measure of negotiating power and ensuring that workers have a free choice and fair chance to form a union. Everyone needs an agent, and for too long workers have not had an agent in the Congress or, in many cases, in the workplace. The bargain this country has promised workers--that if you work hard, you will get ahead--is broken. Hard-working Americans are losing ground. Real wages are lower today than in 1973, despite the fact that productivity has risen over 80 percent. The benefits of rising productivity are going to the richest members of our society. CEO compensation today is 420 times what it is for our workers. Medical costs have skyrocketed. Good manufacturing jobs are being sent overseas. Many workers are squeezed between the impact of corporate outsourcing on the one hand and wage-depressing effects of immigration on the other. In Virginia, real median hourly wages fell by 3.6 percent just in the past 2 years. Hundreds of thousands of Virginians, just like millions of Americans, have no health insurance. As I heard so often during my campaign for the Senate last year and what I continue to hear since I took office, our workers are under tremendous pressure. Only 38 percent of the public says their families are getting ahead financially, and less than one-third believes the next generation of Americans is going to be better off than this generation. Our unions have historically provided a ladder for workers to get ahead. According to a national survey by Peter Hart Research, 60 million Americans report, right now, they would join a union if they could. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than their nonunion counterparts and are 63 percent more likely to have employer-provided health care. Unfortunately, many workers who try to form unions in this country are being blocked by employers. In an analysis of union organizing drives in Chicago, the University of Illinois found that 30 percent of employers tended to fire prounion workers, that 82 percent of employers hired consultants to fight union organization drives, and that 78 percent of employers required supervisors to deliver antiunion messages to their workers. Union membership in this country is now at an alltime low, just comprising 12 percent of our workforce. The ability to form a union should not require heroic efforts. Yet American workers all too often face employer coercion and run the risk of losing their livelihoods simply because they want to organize their workplace in accordance with existing law. Hard-working Americans should have the freedom to make their own choice about whether to join a union, and they should be able to make that choice freely and fairly. The best opportunity for hard-working Americans to get ahead is to join their coworkers and negotiate in one way or another for better wages and benefits. We can help workers improve their bargaining position. The National Labor Relations Act already permits workers to form unions through majority signup. In fact, more workers join unions through majority signup than through National Labor Relations Board elections. Employees of Cingular Wireless joined the Communications Workers of America following a majority signup that was supported by the company. This bill makes the much needed change of allowing workers to form unions by majority signup where employers oppose the union. This bill also levels the playing field for workers by strengthening penalties against employers that coerce or intimidate employees. The fundamental sense of fairness that runs so deep in our Nation's character demands that we take this step on behalf of our working men and women. Let us measure our success in the Senate by the number of hard- working Americans we bring back to the table, the number of families with health care, the number of workers with pensions and fair wages, and the number of children who are able to go to college. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act puts us on the road to achieving this type of success. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to discuss amendment No. 1313 to this bill which is going to be scheduled for a vote later today. Before I do that, I wish to recognize the incredible effort that has gone into this bill. I want to be able to support the bill. I have enormous respect for our distinguished majority leader and the others who have put so much time into the bill and given us time today to discuss some of these other amendments. As I said, I want to be able to support this bill. We have seen some real divisions in the Senate on different provisions. I feel confident, I feel strongly that the amendment I am offering, which is cosponsored by Senator Dorgan, will address what I believe are two crucially needed improvements in this legislation. The first relates to what some people are calling amnesty, wherein the bill legalizes almost everyone who entered this country by the beginning of this year. And the second improvement relates to what I believe is an unworkable set of procedures applicable to those who are properly offered legal status. I believe it is very important to the health and practicality of our system that we attempt to fix these two flaws in the bill. My amendment would achieve three critically important goals. It would create a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have truly put down roots in America. It protects the legitimate interests of all working Americans, and it affords honor and dignity to the concept of true American justice. If one accepts the premises of these three goals, then I strongly believe this amendment is the best way forward for us. As a general matter, I agree with my colleagues the time has come for fair and balanced reform of our broken immigration system. When I say fairness, I mean a system of laws that is fair to everyone in the United States and especially to our wage earners. I strongly support the provisions in this bill that strengthen our Nation's borders. I also support the sections of the bill that create tough civil and criminal penalties for employers who unfairly hire illegal immigrants, creating both a second-class population and undercutting American workers. As a point of reference, I did not support the bill's creation of a massive new temporary worker program, and I am pleased to see at least a portion of that was adjusted by the vote last night. With those points in mind, I wish to address my amendment which concerns the other major component of this bill, and it is an area that has not really received the kind of examination that other portions of the bill have, and that is the legalization program. My amendment reflects a proposal that I have been discussing with Virginians ever since I began to campaign for the Senate. I have always supported tough border security and cracking down on large employers who hire illegal workers. I also have always supported a path to legalization for those who came here during a time of extremely lax immigration laws but who have laid down strong roots in their communities. I do not, however, favor this path to citizenship for everyone who have come here as undocumented persons. Under the provisions of this bill, virtually all undocumented persons living in the United States would be eligible to legalize their status and ultimately become citizens. Estimates are that this number totals 12 million to 20 million people. This is legislative overkill. It is one of the reasons this bill has aroused the passions of ordinary Americans who have no opposition to reasonable immigration policies but who see this as an issue that goes against the grain of basic fairness, which is the very foundation of our society. By contrast, my amendment would allow a smaller percentage of undocumented persons to remain in the United States and legalize their status based on the depth of a person's roots in their community. Under my proposal, undocumented persons who have lived in the United States for at least 4 years prior to the enactment of the bill could apply to legalize their status. I note that this 4-year period is even more generous than the 5-year threshold that was contained in several bills in the past few Congresses--bills that were supported by Senators from both parties and by immigrants rights groups. After receiving the application, the Department of Homeland Security would evaluate a list of objective, measurable criteria to determine whether the applicant should receive a Z visa and thus be allowed to get on the path to citizenship. Among these criteria are work history, payment of Federal or State income taxes, property ownership, business ownership in the United States, a knowledge of English, accomplishment in schools in America, immediate family members in the United States, whether the applicant has a criminal record, and, importantly, whether the applicant wants to become a citizen. These applicants would be given probationary status, as in the underlying bill, while the DHS considers their Z visa applications, and could lawfully work during this probationary status period. I believe these provisions are fair to our immigrant population and also that they will help us avoid the mistakes this Congress made in 1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, which resulted in a tidal wave of illegal immigration. My amendment would also make the underlying bill more practical. It strikes the bill's unrealistic touchback requirement. Few immigrants would have the money or the ability to return to their home countries on other continents. Most of these persons would lose their jobs, leave their families in turmoil, and place further strain on our community services. Basic fairness and common sense dictates that these persons should be allowed to apply for a green card from here in the United States. I believe this amendment sets forth an equitable system that not only recognizes the contributions of immigrants to our society but also introduces practical measures that would help us avoid the mistakes that were made in 1986. I have heard loudly and clearly from Virginians, and I have talked with people on all sides of this issue. What I hear over and over is that Congress should find a fair system that both protects American workers and respects the rule of law. This amendment represents the fairest method I know to do so, and to do so realistically. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up for a vote in the Senate later today. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I rise today to discuss amendment No. 1313, an amendment that I will offer to the immigration reform bill, which will address what I believe are two crucial flaws in this legislation. The first flaw relates to what some people may call amnesty, wherein the bill legalizes almost everyone who entered this country by the beginning of this year. The second flaw relates to an unworkable set of procedures applicable to those who are properly offered legal status. It is important to the health and practicality of our system that these two flaws be addressed. My amendment would achieve three critically important goals: it creates a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have truly put down roots in America; it protects the legitimate interests of all working Americans; and it accords honor and dignity to the concept of true American justice. If one accepts the premises of these three goals, then I strongly believe that this amendment is the best way forward. As a general matter, I agree with my colleagues that the time has come for fair and balanced reform of our broken immigration system. When I say ``fairness,'' I mean a system of laws that is fair to everyone here in the United States and especially our wage earners. I strongly support the provisions in this immigration bill that strengthen our Nation's borders. Our porous borders are a threat to our national security, and we have waited far too long to fix this problem. I also support the sections of the bill that create tough civil and criminal penalties for employers who unfairly hire illegal immigrants, creating both a second-class population and undercutting American workers. The bill's employment verification system will help ensure that illegal workers cannot get employment in the United States and would therefore face little choice but to return to their homelands. As a point of reference, I do not support this bill's creation of a massive new temporary worker program. Two weeks ago, I voted to support Senator Dorgan's two amendments to strike and sunset that program, and I find it regrettable that the Senate did not adopt those amendments. We have seen a good bit of analysis on the Senate floor in recent days to the effect that the temporary worker program will be largely unworkable. To the extent that it would work, it would create a wage- based underclass and a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, as I stated on the floor 2 weeks ago, I believe that guest worker programs--aside from purely temporary, seasonal work--drive down the wages of hard- working Americans and of those who came here by following the law. With those points in mind, I now turn to my amendment, which regards the other major component of this bill--the legalization program. My amendment reflects a proposal that I have been discussing with Virginians ever since I began my campaign for the Senate. I have always supported tough border security and cracking down on large employers who hire illegal workers. I also have always supported a path to legalization for those who came here during a time of extremely lax immigration laws but who have laid down strong roots in their communities. I do not, however, favor this path to citizenship for all undocumented persons. Under the provisions of the immigration bill we are debating, virtually all undocumented persons currently living in the United States would be eligible to legalize their status and ultimately become U.S. citizens. Estimates are that this number totals 12 million to 20 million people. This is legislative overkill. It is one of the reasons that this bill has aroused the passions of ordinary Americans who have no opposition to reasonable immigration policies but who see this as an issue that goes against the grain of basic fairness, which is the very foundation of our society. By contrast, my amendment would allow a smaller percentage of undocumented persons to remain in the United States and legalize their status, based on the depth of a person's roots in their community. Under my proposal, undocumented persons who have lived in the United States at least 4 years prior to enactment of the bill could apply to legalize their status. I note that this 4-year period is even more generous than the 5-year threshold that was contained in several bills in the past few Congresses--bills that were supported by Senators from both parties and by immigrants' rights groups. After receiving the application, the Department of Homeland Security would evaluate a list of objective, measurable criteria to determine whether the applicant should receive a Z visa and thus be allowed to get on the path to citizenship. The statutory criteria to be considered would be work history, payment of Federal or State income taxes, property ownership and business ownership in the United States, knowledge of English, attendance at U.S. schools, immediate family members in the United States, whether the applicant has a criminal record, and whether the applicant wants to become a U.S. citizen. Like the underlying bill, applicants would be given probationary status while the DHS considers their Z visa application and could lawfully work during this probationary status period. I believe these provisions are fair to our immigrant population and also that they will help us avoid the mistakes this Congress made in 1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, which resulted in a tidal wave of illegal immigration. My amendment would also make the underlying bill more practical. It strikes the bill's unrealistic ``touchback'' requirement. Few immigrants would have the money or the ability to return to their home countries on other continents. Most of these persons would lose their U.S. jobs, leaving their families in turmoil and placing further strain on our communities. Basic fairness dictates that these persons be allowed to apply for a green card from within the United States. I believe that my amendment sets forth an equitable system that not only recognizes the contributions of immigrants to our society but also introduces practical measures that will help us avoid the same mistakes our country made in 1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill. I have heard loud and clear from Virginians, and I have talked with people on all sides of this issue. What I hear over and over again is that Congress should find a fair system that both protects American workers and respects the rule of law. This amendment represents the fairest method I know to do so and to do so realistically. I ask you all to support amendment No. 1313 when it comes for a vote in the Senate.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I gladly yield to my colleague.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North Dakota I was very pleased to support both his amendments for those reasons and reasons similar to them. I hope the Senator can get a vote on his revised amendment. I think it is important we deal with this immigration issue in a very realistic and practical manner, with the focus being the well-being of individuals who are here legally and who are citizens whose wages and salaries are in many ways being held down by these types of programs. The guest worker programs are classic examples of that. I also would like to say that with respect to the timeline in the present bill and the cutoff for full legalization being anyone who came here before December 31 of last year, or before January 1 of this year, one of the questions that has been raised on my amendment is: Well, what do we do with these people who haven't been here 4 years? Some questions have been raised saying this would create an unfairness in this amendment. But the answer to that--the obvious answer to that is: What do we do with people who came here after December 31? They are here. What are we going to do with the people who are here next year? They are going to be here. There is always going to be some leakage in our system. What we are looking for is a measure of fairness for people who have truly put down roots in their community and to allow them to assimilate and become American citizens. That is a separate thing from the guest worker program that the Senator from North Dakota is talking about, and I hope I get another chance to vote for his amendment.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would say that an enormous amount of work has gone into this piece of legislation, as we all know. I appreciate all the energy that the Senator from North Dakota has placed for years on the interests of the American worker. I share those interests. This amendment that I offer is based on two things. One is fairness to everyone, including the American worker, and the other is the practicality that is this particular part of the legislation.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to discuss amendment No. 1313, an amendment I will offer to the immigration reform bill, which will address what I believe are two important, crucial flaws in this legislation. The first flaw relates to what many are calling amnesty, wherein the bill legalizes almost everyone who entered this country by the beginning of this year. The second flaw relates to an unworkable set of procedures that is applicable to those who are properly being offered legal status. It is important to the health and practicality of our system, in my view, that these two flaws be addressed. My amendment would achieve three critically important goals. It creates a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have truly put roots down in America; it protects the legitimate interests of all working Americans; and it accords honor and dignity to the concept of true American justice. If one accepts the premises of these three goals, then I strongly believe this amendment is the best way forward for our country. As a general matter, I agree with my colleagues that the time has come for fair and balanced reform of our broken immigration system. When I say ``fairness,'' I mean a system of laws that is fair to everyone in the United States, and especially our wage earners. I strongly support the provisions in this immigration bill that strengthen our Nation's borders. Our porous borders are a threat to our national security, and we have wasted far too long to fix this problem. I also support the sections of the bill that create tough civil and criminal penalties for employers who unfairly hire illegal immigrants, creating both a second-class population and undercutting American workers. This bill's employment verification system will help ensure that illegal workers cannot get employment in the United States and would, therefore, face no choice but to return to their homelands. As a point of reference, I did not support this bill's creation of a massive new temporary worker program. Two weeks ago, I supported Senator Dorgan's two amendments to strike and sunset that program, and I find it regrettable the Senate did not adopt those amendments. We have seen a good bit of analysis on the Senate floor in recent days to the effect that the temporary worker program will be largely unworkable. To the extent it would work, it would create a wage-based underclass and a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, as I stated on the floor 2 weeks ago, I believe guest worker programs--aside from purely temporary, seasonal work--drive down the wages of hard-working Americans, and of those who came here by following the law. With those points in mind, I wish to now turn to my amendment, which regards the other major component of this bill: the legalization program. My amendment reflects a proposal I have been discussing with Virginians ever since I began my campaign for the Senate last year. I have always supported tough border security and cracking down on large employers who hire illegal workers. I also have always supported a path to legalization for those who came here during a time of extremely lax immigration laws but who have laid down strong roots in our communities. I do not, however, favor this path to citizenship for all undocumented persons. Under the provisions of the immigration bill we are now debating, virtually all undocumented persons living in the United States would be eligible to legalize their status and ultimately become citizens. Estimates are that this number totals 12 million to 20 million people. This is legislative overkill. It is one of the reasons this bill has aroused the passions of ordinary Americans who have no opposition to reasonable immigration policies but who see this as an issue that goes against the grain of true fairness, which is the very foundation of our society. My amendment would allow a smaller percentage of undocumented persons to remain in the United States and legalize their status based on the depth of a person's roots in their community. Under my proposal, undocumented persons who have lived in the United States at least 4 years prior to the enactment of the bill could apply to legalize their status. I note that this 4-year period is even more generous than the 5-year threshold that was contained in several bills the past few Congresses addressed--bills that were supported by Senators from both parties and by immigrants' rights groups. After receiving the application, the Department of Homeland Security would evaluate a list of objective, measurable criteria to determine whether the applicant should receive a Z visa and thus be allowed to get on the path to citizenship. Among the statutory criteria would be an individual's work history; payment of Federal or State income taxes; property ownership and business ownership in the United States; knowledge of English; attendance, successfully, at American schools; immediate family members living in the United States; whether the applicant has a criminal record; and, very importantly, whether the applicant wants to become an American citizen. Like the underlying bill, applicants would be given probationary status while the DHS considers their Z visa application and could lawfully work during this probationary period. I believe these provisions are fair to our immigrant population, and also that they will help us avoid the mistakes this Congress made in 1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, which resulted in a tidal wave of illegal immigration. My amendment would also make the underlying bill more practical. It strikes the bill's unrealistic ``touchback'' requirement. Few immigrants would have the money or the ability to return to their home countries on other continents. Most of these persons would lose their American jobs. They would leave their families in turmoil and place further strain on our community services. Basic fairness and common sense dictates that these persons be allowed to apply for a green card from within the United States. I believe my amendment sets forth an equitable system that not only recognizes the contributions of immigrants to our society but also introduces practical measures that will help us avoid the same mistakes our country made in 1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill. I have heard loudly and clearly from Virginians, and I have talked with people on all sides of these issues. What I hear over and over again is that Congress should find a fair system that both protects American workers and respects the rule of law. This amendment represents the fairest method I know to do so, and to do so realistically. I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 1313 when it comes to a vote in the Senate. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and the time to be charged to the majority side.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I did not come to the floor to speak on this amendment. I have long admired the Senator from North Dakota in his sometimes lonely attempts to preserve the well-being of the American worker. But I couldn't sit and listen to his comments without saying a few words in support of this amendment. There seems to be a trend running through the Congress that disturbs me. It is a trend of omission. I do not see enough people who are willing to stand up and speak on behalf of the people who are doing the hard jobs in this society. We can talk about all the benefits of different portions of this bill, but at the same time we are faced with a set of realities, not only with respect to the American workers but, in a broader sense, with respect to people in this country who are having to do the hard work of our society. Who is speaking for them? This used to be the function of the Democratic Party, to speak for them. We are in a situation in this country right now where corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of our national wealth. Yet wages and salaries as a percentage of our national wealth are at an all-time low. How does this happen? One of the ways that it happens is exactly what the Senator from North Dakota is talking about. We have these programs that benefit Wall Street, and they are not necessarily benefiting the people who are doing the hard work of our society, the wage earners who are getting cut out because of an underground economy. I support, in many ways, the move toward giving permanent status to people who have come to this country illegally at one point and who have put down roots and who want to move into the mainstream of our society. But this particular portion of this bill is not designed to do that. It is designed to increase the difficulties that we already have. It is not a compromise, it is a fabrication. I have that concern also when it comes to what we are doing on the Iraq bill. We are sending a supplemental back right now that is not in any way going to support the troops who are having to do the hard work in Iraq. We are going to be talking about benchmarks. There is nobody in the Pentagon, there is nobody in the administration, there are precious few people in the United States Congress who are aware, in a measurable way, of what we are doing to the well-being of the ground troops who are having to go back to Iraq again and again. If this is a conflict that is requiring that sort of commitment on the ground, then why isn't the administration talking differently about the number of troops it needs? Because the people who volunteered to go in the military are supposed to go again and again and do their duty. Well, they are probably on their third and their fourth tours. I put in a bill, along with Senator Hagel, that said you cannot send anybody back to Iraq unless they have been home as long as they have been gone. That, to me, is common sense if you have ever been deployed. I have had a father who was deployed. I have been deployed. I have had a son who has been deployed. I know what it is like. There are a lot of people who know what it is like. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be forcing the administration on that end. We see it in areas such as what has happened to our gas prices here. We are going to get a vote on the Attorney General, apparently, a no- confidence vote. How about getting a vote on how the American people are getting ripped off at the pump? Those things can be documented. You can have all of the economic theories in the world about why these gas prices are going up. Gas was $24 a barrel when we went into Iraq. It is now close to $70. The people who are making money off of that are making money largely off of foreign policy.

Mr. WEBB. Fifteen seconds, Mr. President. There is a theme in this. The theme is that this is the party that is supposed to be taking care of the people who are doing the hard work of our society. There is no shame to stand up and say that what the Senator from North Dakota is proposing is for the good of the people who are doing the hard work of our society.

Mr. WEBB. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield 5 minutes of his time?

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Cardin and Warner, to introduce legislation that will reaffirm the Federal Government's continuing responsibility for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA. Our legislation, in cooperation with State and local governments of the national capital region, will aid in the preservation and maintenance of our regional transportation system. Our predecessors in Congress had a clear vision for rapid rail and bus service that would not only transport Federal employees, residents, and visitors around the national capital region but that would also alleviate traffic congestion, spur growth and development, improve the economic welfare and vitality of all parts of the region, and ensure that all area residents have sufficient mobility options. The Washington Metro transit system has fulfilled that vision and more, providing critical support to the Federal Government and the region during emergencies, helping to protect the environment and improve air quality in our Nation's Capital, and attracting visitors from around the country and the world to ride the system--now a monument of its own. With the Federal Government's commitment to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and to increase national security, Federal support of the Washington Metro system is more important now than ever before. Congress has a fundamental interest in the transit system, and we must join our longstanding regional partners to help meet the demand of Metro's growing ridership and aging infrastructure. Since the Washington Metro transit system began operating its first 4.6 miles of the Red Line between Rhode Island Avenue and Farragut North in 1976, the Metrorail system has added over 100 miles and extended operations to a total of 86 stations throughout the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Almost half of all Metrorail stations today serve Federal facilities, and 42 percent of Metro's peak period commuters are Federal employees. Metrorail and Metrobus ridership continue to grow as more than a million riders on average per weekday choose Metro as their preferred mode of transit for traveling around the national capital region. Metrorail ridership has grown steadily at an average annual growth of 4 percent, according to the Progress Report on the National Capital Region's Six-Year Transportation Capital Funding Needs, 2007-2012, by the Metropolitan Washington Transportation Planning Board, TPB. The report predicts that transit ridership demand will exceed system capacity by the year 2010. New funding authorized in this legislation would provide the necessary resources to increase bus and rail capacity and meet forecasted ridership demands, before the system and region become totally mired in congestion. The Washington Metro transit system has proven critical to the Federal Government, not only in moving its employees and serving Federal facilities but also in providing significant support during emergencies. Immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the Pentagon, Metro continued operations and helped safely evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from the downtown core of the District of Columbia. For a 30-day period after September 11, Metro opened Metrorail service half an hour early to support the Department of Defense as it heightened security actions and encountered major traffic congestion accessing the Pentagon. Metro is a key component in emergency transportation and continuity of operations plans for the entire region, including the civilian and military Federal workforce. Without the use of the Metro system, gridlock would ensue on the region's roadways to a degree that would make all emergency transportation evacuation plans inoperable. With enactment of the legislation we propose today, Congress will assist the Washington Metro transit system to continue to provide its vital service and bolster security measures throughout the system. Additional funding will also enable the transit system to continue to provide the invaluable service of helping to reduce traffic congestion throughout the region. With area roadways becoming increasingly congested, the Washington Metro transit system is critical to the region's infrastructure. According to the 2005 Urban Mobility Report by the Texas Transportation Institute, TTI, the Washington metropolitan area has the third-worst traffic congestion in the United States. Washington area commuters sat in traffic for 145.5 million hours in 2003, costing drivers an estimated $2.46 billion and wasting more than 87 million gallons of fuel. The report shows that the Washington area would have the worst congestion in the Nation if not for its public transportation system. Moreover, the report concludes that Washington Metro transit improvements are necessary to help further relieve congested corridors and serve major activity centers. Currently, Metrorail and Metrobus services result in 580,000 cars being removed from the region's highways each weekday and eliminate the need for 1,400 additional highway lane miles. A reliable and safe public transportation system is essential to encouraging more commuters to utilize alternative modes of transportation, especially as congestion on regional roadways is projected to increase, along with strong job and population growth in the National Capital region. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, MWCOG, estimates the area's population will grow 36 percent by 2030. Already struggling to meet its current ridership demands, the Washington Metro transit system desperately needs increased support from the Federal Government and State and local governments in the national capital region to keep up with the region's current and future economic progress. Metro is an unparalleled asset to the region, not only reducing traffic congestion and air pollutants but also helping to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Public transportation is an inherently energy efficient travel mode, with each transit user consuming an average of one-half the oil consumed by the typical automobile user, according to the American Public Transportation Association, APTA. Current public transportation usage reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 1.4 billion gallons each year. In concrete terms, that means 108 million fewer cars are filling up with gas per year, or almost 300,000 per day, 34 fewer supertankers are leaving the Middle East per year, and over 140,000 fewer tanker trucks are making deliveries to service stations. Locally, the Washington Metro transit system saves the region from using 75 million gallons of gasoline each year. As gas prices continue to rise, many Washington area residents will continue to seize upon the opportunity to save money on fuel consumption by taking public transportation. Additional Federal funding will allow Metro to purchase 340 new railcars and 275 new buses, which are necessary to accommodate more riders and help further reduce oil consumption throughout the Washington region. Public transportation not only helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it also helps reduce toxic emissions and air pollution caused by the large number of cars sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic on area roadways. The Washington Metro transit system eliminates more than 10,000 tons of pollutants from the air each year. Much of the Metrobus fleet is comprised of eco-friendly buses that run on ultra low sulfur diesel fuel, compressed natural gas, diesel electric hybrid and advanced technology fuels. Investing in Metro is one of the most significant contributions the Federal Government can make to help protect the environment in the Washington metropolitan area. Reliable Metrorail and Metrobus service is an attractive alternative to sitting in traffic, but if Metro does not receive additional funding, reliability will diminish along with the public's confidence in the transit system. Already, Metro is struggling to accommodate more riders and modernize its existing assets. Additional dedicated sources of funding are needed if Metro is to continue to serve the Federal workforce and thousands of other area residents and visitors. For the past 30 years, the Washington Metro transit system has been a bedrock for the national capital region, providing reliable transportation, facilitating day-to-day operations of the Federal Government, spurring economic growth and sensible development, reducing sprawl and traffic congestion, and improving the quality of life for the region's citizens and visitors to the Nation's Capital. The future of Metro and its continued success relies upon consistent support from the Federal Government and the regional localities it serves. Now is the time for the Federal Government to commit itself to providing more long-term Federal funding for the Washington Metro system. Together, along with our jurisdictional partners, we must continue to invest in the transit system that has brought so many rewards not only to the region but also to the Federal Government and the entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it moves through the Senate.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Cardin and Warner, to introduce legislation that will reaffirm the Federal Government's continuing responsibility for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA. Our legislation, in cooperation with State and local governments of the national capital region, will aid in the preservation and maintenance of our regional transportation system. Our predecessors in Congress had a clear vision for rapid rail and bus service that would not only transport Federal employees, residents, and visitors around the national capital region but that would also alleviate traffic congestion, spur growth and development, improve the economic welfare and vitality of all parts of the region, and ensure that all area residents have sufficient mobility options. The Washington Metro transit system has fulfilled that vision and more, providing critical support to the Federal Government and the region during emergencies, helping to protect the environment and improve air quality in our Nation's Capital, and attracting visitors from around the country and the world to ride the system--now a monument of its own. With the Federal Government's commitment to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and to increase national security, Federal support of the Washington Metro system is more important now than ever before. Congress has a fundamental interest in the transit system, and we must join our longstanding regional partners to help meet the demand of Metro's growing ridership and aging infrastructure. Since the Washington Metro transit system began operating its first 4.6 miles of the Red Line between Rhode Island Avenue and Farragut North in 1976, the Metrorail system has added over 100 miles and extended operations to a total of 86 stations throughout the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Almost half of all Metrorail stations today serve Federal facilities, and 42 percent of Metro's peak period commuters are Federal employees. Metrorail and Metrobus ridership continue to grow as more than a million riders on average per weekday choose Metro as their preferred mode of transit for traveling around the national capital region. Metrorail ridership has grown steadily at an average annual growth of 4 percent, according to the Progress Report on the National Capital Region's Six-Year Transportation Capital Funding Needs, 2007-2012, by the Metropolitan Washington Transportation Planning Board, TPB. The report predicts that transit ridership demand will exceed system capacity by the year 2010. New funding authorized in this legislation would provide the necessary resources to increase bus and rail capacity and meet forecasted ridership demands, before the system and region become totally mired in congestion. The Washington Metro transit system has proven critical to the Federal Government, not only in moving its employees and serving Federal facilities but also in providing significant support during emergencies. Immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the Pentagon, Metro continued operations and helped safely evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from the downtown core of the District of Columbia. For a 30-day period after September 11, Metro opened Metrorail service half an hour early to support the Department of Defense as it heightened security actions and encountered major traffic congestion accessing the Pentagon. Metro is a key component in emergency transportation and continuity of operations plans for the entire region, including the civilian and military Federal workforce. Without the use of the Metro system, gridlock would ensue on the region's roadways to a degree that would make all emergency transportation evacuation plans inoperable. With enactment of the legislation we propose today, Congress will assist the Washington Metro transit system to continue to provide its vital service and bolster security measures throughout the system. Additional funding will also enable the transit system to continue to provide the invaluable service of helping to reduce traffic congestion throughout the region. With area roadways becoming increasingly congested, the Washington Metro transit system is critical to the region's infrastructure. According to the 2005 Urban Mobility Report by the Texas Transportation Institute, TTI, the Washington metropolitan area has the third-worst traffic congestion in the United States. Washington area commuters sat in traffic for 145.5 million hours in 2003, costing drivers an estimated $2.46 billion and wasting more than 87 million gallons of fuel. The report shows that the Washington area would have the worst congestion in the Nation if not for its public transportation system. Moreover, the report concludes that Washington Metro transit improvements are necessary to help further relieve congested corridors and serve major activity centers. Currently, Metrorail and Metrobus services result in 580,000 cars being removed from the region's highways each weekday and eliminate the need for 1,400 additional highway lane miles. A reliable and safe public transportation system is essential to encouraging more commuters to utilize alternative modes of transportation, especially as congestion on regional roadways is projected to increase, along with strong job and population growth in the National Capital region. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, MWCOG, estimates the area's population will grow 36 percent by 2030. Already struggling to meet its current ridership demands, the Washington Metro transit system desperately needs increased support from the Federal Government and State and local governments in the national capital region to keep up with the region's current and future economic progress. Metro is an unparalleled asset to the region, not only reducing traffic congestion and air pollutants but also helping to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Public transportation is an inherently energy efficient travel mode, with each transit user consuming an average of one-half the oil consumed by the typical automobile user, according to the American Public Transportation Association, APTA. Current public transportation usage reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 1.4 billion gallons each year. In concrete terms, that means 108 million fewer cars are filling up with gas per year, or almost 300,000 per day, 34 fewer supertankers are leaving the Middle East per year, and over 140,000 fewer tanker trucks are making deliveries to service stations. Locally, the Washington Metro transit system saves the region from using 75 million gallons of gasoline each year. As gas prices continue to rise, many Washington area residents will continue to seize upon the opportunity to save money on fuel consumption by taking public transportation. Additional Federal funding will allow Metro to purchase 340 new railcars and 275 new buses, which are necessary to accommodate more riders and help further reduce oil consumption throughout the Washington region. Public transportation not only helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it also helps reduce toxic emissions and air pollution caused by the large number of cars sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic on area roadways. The Washington Metro transit system eliminates more than 10,000 tons of pollutants from the air each year. Much of the Metrobus fleet is comprised of eco-friendly buses that run on ultra low sulfur diesel fuel, compressed natural gas, diesel electric hybrid and advanced technology fuels. Investing in Metro is one of the most significant contributions the Federal Government can make to help protect the environment in the Washington metropolitan area. Reliable Metrorail and Metrobus service is an attractive alternative to sitting in traffic, but if Metro does not receive additional funding, reliability will diminish along with the public's confidence in the transit system. Already, Metro is struggling to accommodate more riders and modernize its existing assets. Additional dedicated sources of funding are needed if Metro is to continue to serve the Federal workforce and thousands of other area residents and visitors. For the past 30 years, the Washington Metro transit system has been a bedrock for the national capital region, providing reliable transportation, facilitating day-to-day operations of the Federal Government, spurring economic growth and sensible development, reducing sprawl and traffic congestion, and improving the quality of life for the region's citizens and visitors to the Nation's Capital. The future of Metro and its continued success relies upon consistent support from the Federal Government and the regional localities it serves. Now is the time for the Federal Government to commit itself to providing more long-term Federal funding for the Washington Metro system. Together, along with our jurisdictional partners, we must continue to invest in the transit system that has brought so many rewards not only to the region but also to the Federal Government and the entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it moves through the Senate.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, this is a very difficult time for those of us who have long known that the war in Iraq was a strategic error of monumental proportions but who also understand the practical realities of disengagement. The majority of this country believes we need to readjust our Iraq policy and get our combat forces off the streets of Iraq's cities. A majority of our military believes this administration's approach is not working. A majority of the Congress believes we need a new approach. There are sound, realistic alternatives that could be pursued toward the eventual goal of removing our troops from Iraq, increasing the political stability of that war-torn region, increasing our capability to defeat the forces of international terrorism, and allowing our country to focus on larger strategic priorities that have now gone untended for years. Unfortunately, few of these alternatives seem to make it to the House or Senate floor in a form that would truly impact policy. With respect to the approaches that have been taken recently, let me first say I am somewhat cynical about the stack of benchmarks that have appeared in recent bills laying down a series of requirements to the Iraqi Government. The reality is that the Iraqi Government is a weak government. Like the Lebanese Government 20 years ago, it has very little power, and it is surrounded by a multiplicity of armed factions which have overwhelming power in their own concentrated areas of activity. Too often, the benchmarks that we, in our splendid isolation, decide to impose are little more than feel-good measures, giving us the illusion that we are doing something meaningful. Just to make them more illusory, the language we send over on benchmarks and other policies, such as unit readiness and length of deployment, are usually couched with waivers, so the President can simply ignore the language, anyway. What does this do? How can we continue these actions and then claim to the American people that we are really solving the most troubling issue of our era? Some of these discussions remind me of what Mark Twain once wrote, saying that the Government in Washington is like 2,000 ants floating down the river on a log, each one thinking they are driving it. Secondly, let me say that I admire the intentions of the bill my colleague, Senator Feingold, introduced today. However, I could not vote for that bill because an arbitrary cutoff date for funding military operations in Iraq might actually work against the country's best interests in an environment where we have finally seen some diplomatic efforts from this administration. Recent initiatives from Secretary of State Rice, Ambassador Crocker, and Admiral Fallon, the new commander of Central Command, hold out the hope, if not the promise, that we might actually start to turn this thing around. Admiral Fallon has publicly stated that we must deal with Iran and Syria. Ambassador Crocker, at this moment, is arranging a diplomatic exchange with Iran. Secretary of State Rice has cooperated at the ministerial level in an environment where her Iranian counterpart was also at the table. Importantly, Admiral Fallon mentioned during his recent confirmation hearing that it is not the number of troops in Iraq that is important but the uses to which they are being put. So there is some room for movement here, as long as the movement occurs in a timely fashion. An arbitrary cutoff date would, at this point, take away an important negotiating tool. Let us just hope they use the tools we are providing them in an effective manner. There is, however, one issue which demands our immediate attention and which should not be delayed. As we look at our options here in Congress, I continue to firmly believe we have a duty in an area which is not being properly addressed by this administration and which is in the proper purview of the Congress. When the supplemental appropriations bill is returned to the President, it should contain language prohibiting this administration from deploying Army units for longer than 12 months and from deploying Marine Corps units for longer than 210 days. It should also prohibit sending any military individual overseas unless he or she has been home from a previous tour for at least as long as they had been deployed. In other words, if you have been gone a year, you should come home for a year before you go back. This administration has gone to the well again and again, extending the length of military tours and shortening the time our soldiers and marines are allowed to be at home before being sent again and again into Iraq and Afghanistan. Absent the gravest national emergency, there is no strategy in Iraq or elsewhere that justifies what has been happening with the deployment cycles of the men and women we are sending into harm's way. It has reached the point that the good will and dedication of our military people are being abused by policymakers obsessed with various experimental strategies being conducted at their expense. These people have put their lives literally into the hands of our national leadership. There are limits to human endurance, and there are limits to what military families can be expected to tolerate in the name of the national good. For that reason, I urge our conferees to include language which will limit this policy in the bill that will be returned to the President. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. I ask the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, today is a day that, for Vietnamese around the world, is as significant as the distinctions we often make between B.C. and A.D. in other cultures. Thirty-two years ago today the Communist forces from North Vietnam finished their conquest of the south and South Vietnam ceased to exist. Ho Chi Minh would like to say the motivation for pursuing this war was independence and freedom. If we were to discuss independence, in the sense of removing foreign involvement, at that moment they were arguably correct. But if we were to discuss true issues of freedom, the aspirations of freedom for millions of people in Vietnam ceased on that day. Some liked to call the conquest of South Vietnam liberation. For millions of Vietnamese around the world it was the loss of everything, including their country. A million people were sent into reeducation camps, and 240,000 of them stayed in those camps for longer than 4 years, some as long as 18 years; 56,000 died in those reeducation camps; an estimated 1 million people jumped into the sea during some periods, with more than a 50-percent chance of dying, and many of them ended up in this country. We currently have today in this country 2 million people of Vietnamese descent. I do not want, at this moment, to refight the Vietnam war, nor do I want to dwell too much on the differences between the Vietnam war and the present war. But I have seen people on both sides talk about the Iraq war as if there were some correlation to Vietnam. I want to say that, for those who worry about how we withdrew from Vietnam, there is not a parallel. For those who worry, frankly, how we went into Vietnam, there is not a parallel. There are different continents, different governmental systems, different issues with respect to our national objectives. In Vietnam we assisted an existing government that had been created by international agreement. We fought side by side with an army that itself lost 245,000 soldiers dead on the battlefield. We fought for a very long time with the support of the American people--a reality that is sometimes missed today as we look back on the tragic way the Vietnam war ended. A 1972 Harris poll showed even 8 years after we began our involvement in Vietnam, the American people agreed by a margin of 74 percent to 11 percent that it was important that South Vietnam not fall into the hands of the Communists. We rarely hear those statistics today. We rarely hear that viewpoint. I stand here as someone who still today supports our national objectives in Vietnam and who was an early warning voice with respect to the strategic inadvisability of going into Iraq. On this special day of remembrance for so many Vietnamese around the world, I wish to give a salute, first, to our Vietnam veterans who fought with such great honor, whose sacrifices are rarely remembered in an affirmative sense. We saw 58,000 Americans die on the battlefields of Vietnam and more than 300,000 wounded; 3 million people served. I also wish to thank the veterans of the South Vietnamese Army who also are so frequently wrongly portrayed in history. They fought alongside us. Many of them fought very well. As I mentioned earlier, 245,000 of them died in the battlefield and many more went through struggles after the war that are very difficult for Americans to digest. Imagine being in a reeducation camp for 13\1/2\ years, where you are allowed to see your family for 15 minutes a year. Imagine not having veterans status, either in Vietnam or in the United States, after having gone through, in some cases, 12 years on a battlefield. I wish to thank those Vietnamese, the truly forgotten warriors who stood alongside us on the battlefield. I also wish to express my pride and appreciation to the Vietnamese who came to this country and showed us the strength of their culture, showed us what could have happened if South Vietnam had remained free. We now have 2 million Vietnamese Americans living in this country and they have done enormously well. With respect to the Hanoi Government--I have been dealing with the Hanoi Government since 1991 when I first returned to Vietnam. I have made many trips back to Vietnam in many different capacities. They have made significant strides since those early days when they essentially were a Stalinist system. There is a lot to be proud of in terms of the transformations that have been going on in Vietnam. Vietnam is growing. It is growing economically. We have much work to do. We have much work to do in terms of encouraging that political system to open up, to allow religious freedom, to allow greater political freedom. We are on a pathway where, with the right kind of dialog, I believe that is going to occur. I think the best legacy for us to have when we look back at that era would be to see Vietnam, the Vietnam of today, as a strategic and commercial partner but also as a vibrant, open society whose Government reflects the strength of the culture itself, a strength that has been demonstrated over and over again by the Vietnamese who have come to this country and who, I am proud to say, are now Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, there is a lot of emotion in the Congress today, as there is in the country, on this issue. There is a lot of rhetoric flying back and forth. Some of it is inaccurate. The first thing we need to say is that this is not an issue of the Congress denying anything to the people of the Armed Forces. We are exercising our constitutional power to appropriate. We are sending the President a $100 billion check. If he chooses not to cash that check, it is up to him to come up with the reasons why, not us. There is also a lot of rhetoric going around over the past couple of days about defeatism and surrender and accusations of betraying the troops. We need to calm down a bit. There is no one in this Congress who wants anything more than to support those people who have been put into harm's way. I believe people should be very careful on this floor to discuss political motivations of our military which reflect very closely the political views of the country at large. Poll after poll shows that. In respect to accusations about defeatism and surrender, the question becomes: Defeat by whom and surrender to whom? We won this war 4 years ago. The question is, When do we end the occupation? Iraq has been in turmoil for thousands of years. It will be in turmoil of one kind or another long after we leave. The U.S. military is not going to change the societal makeup of Iraq. The Maliki government is not going to bring peace among Iraq's competing factions without the strong, over diplomatic cooperation of other countries in the region. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, these other countries, all of them, do have an incentive in seeing a stable Iraq. This administration claims that our deciding to withdraw from the internal problems of Iraq will embolden the enemy. Then the question becomes: Just which enemy? Do they mean the enemy that attacked us on 9/11? We all know that was Osama bin Laden. He not only was not in Iraq, but he was opposed to the continuation of Saddam Hussein's regime because it was a secular government. Do they mean Saddam Hussein, whose ouster was their justification for beginning this war? Do they mean the remnants of the old regime, which was their catch phrase when the occupation began? Do they mean al- Qaida? Let's remember, there were no al-Qaida operations in Iraq before we invaded, and there will be very little motivation for al-Qaida to continue in Iraq once we have left. Not only that, but the Iraqis themselves are quite capable of standing up to al-Qaida without our help. They do not want al-Qaida in Iraq. That is why they are cooperating with our forces in Anbar Province right now. And they kept al-Qaida out of Iraq before we got there. Or do they mean what this administration continually calls the insurgency, as if there were a monolithic group of defeatable guerrilla forces? We keep hearing about this insurgency. Well, which one? The Sunnis? The Shia? Ask yourselves again, against whom are the insurgents operating? Some are operating against us. Why? Because we are there and they want us to leave, as a vast majority of the Iraqis say in poll after poll. Some are operating against other ethnic factions in Iraq. But to what extent is that the responsibility of the United States military, to try to end ethnic rivalries that go back hundreds of years? Or perhaps, as defined by this administration, we are talking about the factions within the factions that are busily trying to kill each other, just as the factions in Lebanon were trying to kill each other more than 20 years ago, when we put the marines in the middle of that violence. Some say our withdrawal from Iraq would create chaos in the region. I have long advocated a withdrawal that should be accomplished under the umbrella of a strong diplomatic effort that involves regional cooperation. But I must regrettably say, for those of us who warned against invading Iraq and decapitating that existing Government, the chaos the administration is now predicting is exactly the chaos their invasion has brought us in the first place--instability in the region, a loss of American prestige, a rise in the influence of Iran, an increase in terrorist activity.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.