[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2828-2832]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are confronted with a piece of 
legislation introduced by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Feingold, which calls for setting forth the global strategy of the 
United States to combat and defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates. The 
question I guess I would ask is: Where have those who propose a new 
strategy been? Have they been paying attention to the good news that 
has been coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan when it comes to our 
ability and our successes to combat global terrorism and particularly 
the threat of al-Qaida?
  I think the legislation that has been proposed is both misguided and 
unnecessarily duplicative of the efforts which I will describe here, 
which are ongoing, and would literally cause us to snatch defeat from 
the jaws of victory.
  On a more basic level, I think this legislation misses the point. 
Every

[[Page 2829]]

time I come back to work here in Washington, DC, I almost feel there is 
a parallel universe operating here in Washington where some have 
voluntarily suspended their powers of disbelief and ignored the facts 
that seem to me to be as plain as the nose on your face. But I think in 
light of the fact that this legislation has been introduced, we need to 
talk about it and provide the American people with the evidence with 
which they can make their own decisions about what is happening with 
regard to the fight against al-Qaida.
  This bill would require the administration to set forth a strategy 
for fighting al-Qaida. I do not know what the proponents think we have 
been doing since 9/11 but fighting al-Qaida wherever we may find them, 
but that is what the bill calls for. Of course, the bill also 
conveniently neglects the various strategies we have in place, 
including some that are classified which we cannot talk about here on 
the floor of the Senate, but which the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin as a member of the Intelligence Committee knows--because he 
is on the Intelligence Committee; he has been briefed in a classified 
setting about these strategies--he knows we have a number of strategies 
in place, and this proposal seems to act as if nothing has happened, 
when that is not the case at all.
  I would interject that overall in the operations against al-Qaida, in 
Iraq in 2007, we have seen the capture of 8,800 terrorists, while an 
additional 2,400 have been killed. Of those we captured or killed, 52 
were senior emirs or commanders, 32 were leaders of improvised 
explosive device teams, 24 were cell leaders, and 92 were other 
facilitators. In other words, we have been effective in going after 
high-value targets in Iraq and literally decapitating the leadership of 
al-Qaida. That is the reason why al-Qaida is on the run in Iraq and, 
yes, even in Afghanistan.
  But to recapitulate, the various strategies that are already in place 
would seem to be ignored by this legislation. These include the 
President's National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which was 
revised by the administration in September of 2006, and which outlines 
in a clear and straightforward fashion the strategic vision for the 
global war on terror.
  Also, there is the President's National Implementation Plan, which 
was completed in June of 2006. This document is a classified, 
comprehensive plan, so we are not going to talk about it on the floor 
in detail. But it provides for the execution of our national 
counterterrorism strategy, and it provides a detailed breakdown of 
which executive branch agencies are charged with carrying out the 
specific tasks and activities as part of that overall strategy.
  Now, Congress, as I said, is aware of all these documents. We get 
classified briefings. Any Member of Congress who cares enough about it 
can go to room 407 here in the Capitol and gain access to them. 
Additionally, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is conducting 
his own review of the al-Qaida strategy, which will be finished later 
this year. So it is a disingenuous and hollow argument, indeed, to say 
the administration or this country, the U.S. Government, lacks a 
coherent plan to neutralize al-Qaida or that the current strategy for 
combating al-Qaida is not working and it needs to be replaced.
  The numbers speak for themselves. I am going to go through these in 
rather quick order, but I think the numbers speak louder than words.
  During the period of May to June 2007, as this chart demonstrates, we 
have seen 26 al-Qaida in Iraq leaders captured or killed. They include 
some pretty evil characters, people such as Khalil al-Mashhadani, a 
senior Iraqi in the al-Qaida-Iraq network. He was a principal 
intermediary between al-Qaida senior leadership and Abu Ayyub al-Masri. 
He ordered all Iraqi emirs to wear suicide vests--a trend we are still 
seeing today--and confirmed in interrogation that al-Qaida lost the al-
Anbar safe havens due to coalition operations and tribal engagements by 
the Awakening Groups, which I will talk about in a minute. He was 
captured in July and sentenced to death by an Iraqi court this past 
September.
  We have seen since that time, in July and August, senior terrorists 
captured or killed. It simply is not true to suggest that we are 
ineffective or not focused on capturing or killing al-Qaida's senior 
leadership in Iraq or wherever we may find them in Afghanistan or 
elsewhere.
  For example, in August, we were successful in capturing the emir of 
greater Samarra, the mastermind behind the destruction of the Samarra 
mosque in February of 2006, generally credited with unleashing the 
ethnic conflict which nearly led to a civil war in Iraq. He operated 
the Samarra terrorist network responsible for improvised explosive 
devices and vehicle bomb attacks. He orchestrated the Kirkuk courthouse 
bombing in June of 2006 that killed 20 and injured more than 100. This 
emir of greater Samarra was killed in a targeted raid this past August.
  But to remind my colleagues of the kinds of barbaric and evil attacks 
these al-Qaida leaders have perpetrated on their own people, by and 
large in Iraq, this individual orchestrated the Kirkuk courthouse 
bombing in June of 2006. He masterminded a vehicle bomb attack against 
the Iraqi Army checkpoint in Samarra in 2006, in which 29 Iraqi 
security forces were killed and another 66 injured.
  So that is August of 2007. As you can see, the numbers even go up in 
September of 2007, with senior terrorists captured or killed. Each one 
of these pictures on this chart is a different story: the brown squares 
depicting those who have been captured; the red squares indicate those 
who have been killed.
  Clearly, Iraqi, American, and coalition forces, along with our 
allies--the Iraqis who have basically turned state's evidence on al-
Qaida in Iraq have allowed us the intelligence necessary to capture or 
kill some of the worst of the worst among al-Qaida in Iraq.
  In October of 2007, as you can see, the pace remains a steady one and 
a strong one in terms of capturing or killing al-Qaida's leadership.
  The fact of the matter is, we could put up a new chart for each month 
until this month and last month. The fact is, we are making enormous 
progress. So why in the world would this Senate want to change course 
and grab defeat from the jaws of victory, when it comes to putting al-
Qaida on the run?
  I have to say on a contentious subject such as this, where it seems 
as though people have their own version of reality, the best evidence--
and one that is undeniable--is the fact we have not had another 
terrorist attack in the United States since September 11, 2001.
  While al-Qaida is on the minds of my colleagues, though, this is a 
valuable opportunity for us to talk about the fight against al-Qaida as 
part of the overall global war on terror. Today, al-Qaida and other 
like-minded radical jihadist groups still pose a very real threat to 
the safety of America's vital national security interests, both here 
and abroad.
  These Islamic extremists go under a lot of different names: 
Hezbollah, operating in Lebanon and in parts of Iran and Syria; Hamas; 
al-Qaida in Iraq; the Taliban--all of which have the common ideology 
which allows them somehow to celebrate the murder of innocent civilians 
as part of their twisted goals.
  Al-Qaida remains active not only in Iraq but worldwide. This is 
literally a franchise operation which in an Internet age allows like-
minded radicals to communicate with one another, and through the use of 
relatively cheap explosives and human bombs to basically commit terror 
all around the world.
  It is the existence of this threat that warrants our continued 
vigilance and sustained efforts to neutralize them, and Congress must 
continue to support our military in defeating al-Qaida on every front. 
We have been successful. But it is important to recognize this threat 
is not only located in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is a global threat.
  Recently, ADM Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, 
outlined terror attacks prevented in New Jersey and Illinois--that is 
right, right here in the United States of America. He also outlined 
attacks that have been prevented abroad in Denmark,

[[Page 2830]]

Spain, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In the opinion of those 
who know best--our intelligence professionals--this enemy and this 
threat is real. This enemy plans to attack us, and it is smart, 
adaptable, and ruthless.
  Somehow, some Members of the Senate have been able to convince 
themselves against all the evidence that al-Qaida is not present in 
Iraq and that if we fought al-Qaida in Afghanistan we would be safe 
here at home. The fact is, it is true the Taliban provided safe havens 
for al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida has also found a safe haven in 
Iraq. But due to the great work of our young men and women in the 
military, due to our intelligence professionals, due to the 
intelligence we are able to gain from the cooperation of Iraqi citizens 
through the Awakening Councils, who have simply gotten fed up with the 
barbaric tactics of al-Qaida--the murder, the rape, the torture of 
their own people and thus have cooperated now with coalition forces to 
root out al-Qaida--we do have al-Qaida on the run in Iraq.
  But that is a fragile condition, and a trend we must continue, not 
only through the use of allied and coalition forces but through the 
rebuilding of the Iraqi police force and military, and encouraging 
citizens, such as the Awakening Councils, to come forward and provide 
intelligence.
  But the fact of the matter is, if the United States of America does 
not lead the fight in this global war on terror, more innocent people 
will die. There is no other country in the world that is capable as we 
are, that has the vital national security interests that we do, to 
fight this war.
  Again, this parallel universe that some occupy here in Washington, 
DC, that allowed them somehow to convince themselves that this threat 
is not real, defies the facts. There are those who propose countless 
resolutions in the Senate and the Congress to withdraw from Iraq based 
on a political or arbitrary timetable, which makes no sense. As the 
Iraq Study Group said, we should leave Iraq as soon as possible and 
define it not in political terms but in terms of conditions on the 
ground, and that is once the Iraqis are able to govern and defend 
themselves.
  We know that politicians here in Washington have declared the surge a 
failure before it even started, but they have had to come to grips with 
the fact that you are always in jeopardy when you bet against the men 
and women of the U.S. military and our leadership and under the 
leadership of people such as GEN David Petraeus and GEN Raymond 
Odierno.
  We have seen the surge of American troops, along with the increased 
capacity of the Iraqis to defend themselves, meet with enormous success 
and reverse a trend that was dangerously cascading toward a civil war 
and ethnic cleansing. But the fact is that despite the repeated efforts 
by some here in Congress who have declared defeat before this new 
strategy was even allowed to take hold have now had to deal with the 
fact that almost without exception, everyone who goes to Iraq comes 
back with the report that our men and women in uniform are being 
successful and that the surge is working.
  I went with a couple of my colleagues, Senator Isakson and Senator 
Coleman, to Iraq in January where we were able to ride, in armored 
vehicles, admittedly, to forward operating bases that previously had 
been lost to al-Qaida, where refugees had simply abandoned their shops 
and their homes given the threat posed to the Iraqi people themselves 
from this ruthless enemy. The fact is, people are moving back home. 
Shop owners are opening their shops. We were able to taste some of the 
bread cooked in a bakery in an area called Ghazaliya outside of Baghdad 
that previously could not operate. We went to a local department store 
that previously had to be closed and abandoned literally because of the 
threat of al-Qaida and looked at some of the wares for sale.
  So this debate that continues here in Washington seems to me to be 
increasingly out of touch with the reality in Iraq and the clear 
evidence that this new tactic, this counterinsurgency tactic being 
deployed by General Odierno, General Petraeus, and our men and women in 
uniform in Iraq is succeeding. It is because of that success that we 
are able to bring back by this summer roughly 40,000 troops to the 
loving arms of their families and in answer to the prayers of many 
Americans who wish to bring them home but bring them home with honor 
and after they have been successful in accomplishing the goals they set 
out to do.
  Now, because of the evidence of the military effort in Iraq, a 
combination of our coalition forces and Iraqis and local citizens 
cooperating to get al-Qaida on the run, there are those who said: Well, 
OK, the glass is not half full, it is still half empty. Where is the 
political reconciliation that is necessary for the Iraqis to govern 
themselves?
  While progress on the political front has been slower than any of us 
might have wished for, we are seeing very positive signs of political 
reconciliation. The Iraqi Parliament recently met some major milestones 
for success, and these are very important because these are the 
evidence of the political reconciliation many of the skeptics have 
looked for and pointed out as not having been met. So it is important 
to acknowledge the facts.
  First, they passed an accountability and justice law--the first major 
step in debaathification reform. We know that many of Saddam Hussein's 
Baath Party members were excluded from the new Iraq, and this is the 
first major step to allow people who do not have blood on their hands, 
who weren't part of the leadership of Saddam's Baath Party, responsible 
for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, to allow them to 
take their first steps back into governing the new Iraq and 
participating in full civic life.
  In addition, just a few short weeks ago the Iraq Parliament passed 
three other significant pieces of legislation. They set a date for 
provincial elections, recognizing, as we do here in Washington, that 
not all wisdom emanates from the Nation's Capital, that they believe in 
local governance and regional governance, and that is why the 
provincial elections are so important as well.
  The Iraqi Government or Parliament allotted $48 billion for 2008 
spending, meaning that because of increased oil revenue, they were able 
to take on more and more of the financial responsibilities of 
rebuilding and governing their own country.
  Finally, they provided limited amnesty to certain detainees in Iraqi 
custody--an important, although difficult, step to try to make sure the 
reconciliation occurs on an individual level so that people need not be 
permanently cast as outsiders and given nothing but the opportunity to 
undermine reconstruction and reconciliation but actually be part of the 
solution rather than part of the problem.
  The passage of the provincial powers law is one of the 18 benchmarks 
for reconciliation in Iraq which were set by the Congress just this 
last year.
  Despite this concrete evidence of improvement and of meeting 
benchmarks for political reconciliation, there are those here in 
Congress who have simply ignored those positive steps, not only on the 
security front but on the political reconciliation front. 
Unfortunately, it seems as if too often our partisan differences seem 
to overwhelm facts and common sense and the common interests of all of 
us in America in an Iraq that is able to govern and to defend itself 
because our shared goal--which is to bring home our troops--is one that 
could be met when conditions on the ground permit those troops to come 
home without squandering the blood and the treasure that have been 
spent in trying to restore democracy to a country that knew nothing 
other than the boot heel of a dictator for too many years.
  There are so many wonderful stories of success and commitment and 
patriotism in Iraq, and I would like to just close on this. I see my 
distinguished colleague from Wyoming on the floor, and I want to defer 
to him after another few minutes. I want to recognize and honor the 
great sacrifice by Texans deployed in harm's way in support of the 
global war on terror.

[[Page 2831]]

  Some of our troops serving in faraway battlefields since 9/11 have 
exhibited incredible bravery and heroism in the face of personal 
danger, and I wish to share one story of one Texan among many who has 
served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I wish to tell the story of SGT Omar 
Hernandez, assigned to Bravo Company, the 1st Cavalry Division out of 
Fort Hood, TX.
  Sergeant Hernandez has been awarded the Silver Star for exceptional 
bravery and gallantry in action against an enemy. He did this while 
serving as a team leader on a foot patrol in Baghdad. His patrol 
consisted of a squad of American soldiers, an interpreter, and eight 
Iraqi national policemen. Their mission, as is critical to the 
counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, was to secure the population, to 
make them feel safe. They moved from house to house on crowded Baghdad 
streets interviewing the local population as part of their job.
  During the course of one interview, though, Sergeant Hernandez and 
the Iraqi police accompanying him were moving to security positions on 
the outside of a home when they were suddenly engaged by several well-
aimed bursts of machine gun fire from the south. Sergeant Hernandez 
immediately identified the enemy's location and returned fire, 
simultaneously instructing the Iraqi police to follow his lead. A 
second burst of well-aimed fire erupted from the enemy's position, 
wounding all three members of the team. Sergeant Hernandez himself 
sustained a gunshot wound to his right thigh. Both Iraqi police 
sustained serious injuries, immobilizing both of them.
  Not realizing the severity of their wounds, Sergeant Hernandez 
ordered the Iraqi policemen to follow him to a covered position behind 
a cement wall. As he continued to engage the enemy, Sergeant Hernandez 
realized that the Iraqi police were too badly injured to reach cover on 
their own. Seeing that these Iraqi policemen were stuck in the enemy's 
direct line of fire, Sergeant Hernandez went above and beyond the call 
of duty, risking his own life by running under direct fire to pull 
these Iraqi policemen to safety. Without covering fire, Sergeant 
Hernandez left his covered position--not once but twice--to move these 
wounded Iraqi policemen to a safer position. He did all of this despite 
the danger to himself and having a gunshot wound to his leg. Despite 
his injuries and despite the continued barrage of enemy fire, Sergeant 
Hernandez continued to fire on the enemy position. It was only after he 
was certain that the threat was eliminated that he finally allowed a 
squad mate to treat his wounds.
  Sergeant Hernandez is just one of many brave men and women who wear 
the uniform of the U.S. military who are serving nobly in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. While there is no doubt that his courage and strength were 
extraordinary, in some ways this is a typical sort of story of the 
bravery of our men and women in uniform. It should be clear that 
Sergeant Hernandez is representative of the quality and character of 
our military men and women.
  I think this also tells a story of the relationship that exists 
between our soldiers and Iraq security forces. They fight shoulder to 
shoulder. They fight and sacrifice together to make their country a 
better place so that peace and stability might come to Iraq and so that 
the forces of terror and extremism that wish America and our allies 
harm will find no sanctuary in that country.
  Sergeant Hernandez, thankfully, has now recovered from his wounds and 
is stationed at Fort Bliss out in El Paso, TX. He has a 17-month-old 
boy and has been married to his wife Jennifer Kay for 3 years.
  Sergeant Hernandez, it is worth noting, was on his third tour in 
Iraq. These young men and women and their incredible families are our 
most precious national asset. The tremendous sacrifices they make and 
have made over these last years ought to leave us with awe-struck 
silence. Think of what these men and women have invested in this war in 
terms of their sweat, their blood, tears and effort. What message would 
we be sending to these brave men and women when we tell them to come 
home when victory sits on the horizon?
  Sergeant Hernandez wouldn't abandon his colleagues in the Iraqi 
National Police force, but there are some here in Washington--a world 
away--who want to ask him and all of our troops to abandon the Iraqis 
and come home before the job is done.
  Those who have been clamoring for troop withdrawals for months upon 
months, regardless of the news from Iraq, all the while extolling the 
virtues of our military, I think have been telling only half the story. 
Yet, at the same time, they refuse to pass the critical funding, 
intelligence capabilities such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act reauthorization bill which sits over in the House of 
Representatives and which, because of the failure to act by Speaker 
Pelosi and the leadership in the House, has left our intelligence 
authorities deaf to new terrorist targets that, if detected, would 
likely detour and defeat attacks against American citizens, both here 
and abroad.
  Mr. President, the American people often accuse politicians of saying 
one thing and doing another. But this is a clear case. Servicemembers 
such as Sergeant Hernandez deserve not only our words but our 
unmitigated support.
  I think our task is clear and that is to let our men and women in 
uniform do the job they have volunteered to do and which they are so 
ably performing. We ought to do nothing to deter or impede or obstruct 
their success, especially when success appears to be so much more 
clearly on the horizon than a few short months ago. But as these charts 
have indicated, we are having tremendous success in taking down al-
Qaida--those who celebrate the murder of innocent civilians in pursuit 
of their own twisted goals. The last thing we need to do is to pass 
legislation that would literally draw defeat from the jaws of victory.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will make a few comments about what is 
going on around here. I am not sure what has gotten into the water 
around here, but something strange has happened over the last couple 
days. Well, maybe it is not so strange, or even unusual, and that is 
unfortunate. What I am talking about is a sort of snowstorm, a 
whiteout--the people in Wyoming will know what I am talking about--
except this whiteout isn't made of snow.
  Bear with me while I describe our last vote, the one we did last 
night. It was cloture on a motion to proceed to a measure that says we 
should have a plan to fight al-Qaida and that we should basically put 
that plan out for public comment. That might strike people outside 
Washington as a little odd, and it should. Doesn't our military already 
have a plan? Yes, it does. Why would we want to tell al-Qaida how we 
plan to defeat them? Good questions. Good points.
  The fact that the motion to debate the proposal passed overwhelmingly 
might further leave people scratching their heads. Senators, the 
majority of whom, I would venture to say, do not want the proposal to 
become law, voted to waste the Senate's time debating this measure. 
Why? Is it because debating this will actually help us to defeat al-
Qaida? Is it because debating this will make our Nation more secure? 
No, it would not.
  This is all happening at a time when we have an urgent need to work 
on solutions to the problems just about every one of the American 
people worry about. Health care is at the top of the list. Congress 
needs to wrangle with spiraling health care costs. Medicare is going 
broke. Social Security is following suit a little bit later. There are 
education measures on the table right now that we need to finish. Our 
economy begs for positive action. We have a budget problem in Congress. 
But the Senate came to a decision. On a vote of 89 to 3 last night, 
this body decided that instead of working on these problems I 
mentioned, we needed to debate a bill few of us want to ultimately 
approve. That is wrong. The American people did not elect us to play

[[Page 2832]]

``gotcha'' politics. They want to see action on real problems. They 
want to see results--positive results.
  I voted against debating on this ill-begotten proposal because 
Congress needs to be doing the work the people sent us here to do.
  National defense is of utmost importance to our Nation. Without a 
strong national defense, we would not have the free country we have. I 
strongly support our troops. I thank them every day and pray for them 
and their families every night. I do all in my power to see that they 
have the support and the resources to do their job. Their lives, and 
ultimately our way of life, depend on it; it depends on them. But this 
proposal we are debating now doesn't help them. Our military 
strategists, our leaders in the field, do not want this legislation.
  Of course we need a plan to defeat al-Qaida in every corner of the 
world where this wretched terrorist group hides. We need to focus on 
the terrorists and defeat them at every turn. But is it Congress's role 
to insist on a plan and then share the plan with al-Qaida? That is 
ultimately what this legislation would do. If Congress forces the 
administration and our military to write this plan according to 
Congress's specification, then Congress is going to want to see the 
plan to ensure it meets Congress's requirements. We all know Congress 
cannot keep a secret. If you tell the enemy your strategy, then your 
strategy will not work. This is a bill that is fundamentally flawed at 
the outset. I voted not to debate the bill. I was one of three, but a 
bill not worth doing is a bill not worth debating.
  Just before September 11, 2001, I was given the opportunity to serve 
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I was the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on International Operations and Antiterrorism. It was 
during August that I was assigned to that. So in September, since I was 
the newest person on the committee and the least ranking, a lot of 
people said: How did he get on that committee? It wasn't important 
until after September 11, 2001--or at least we didn't place that kind 
of importance on it. Through that role, I was given the opportunity to 
work directly with other countries at the United Nations on ways to 
stop terrorism. I am an accountant, so I was delighted to be a part of 
the group that said one of the answers was to concentrate on following 
the money. It made a huge difference and it continues to make a 
difference. Countries that will never publicly admit to helping in the 
hunt for terrorists have helped. I know countries peer pressured other 
countries into helping with the fight against terrorism. Terrorists 
were caught, they were prosecuted, and some were executed. More 
sophisticated versions of this plan to fight terrorism are still in 
operation today. But we should not disclose the plan because that would 
make them worthless.
  The Senate wants additional reports. Why? Congress has already 
mandated reports on the National Security Strategy of the United 
States, the National Defense Strategy of the United States, the 
National Homeland Security Strategy of the United States, the National 
Military Strategy of the United States, the Quadrennial Defense Review 
Report, the National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terror, the 
National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, the 
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. Does that sound like plenty of 
work for the Pentagon?
  I want you to know the Pentagon is already doing what this bill wants 
us to do. We do need a plan. We have a plan. We cannot make that plan 
public without allowing the enemy to figure out how to combat every 
article in it. Why are we having this debate? Well, I know we are 
having this debate partly to place emphasis on the fact that we need to 
get the FISA legislation passed. Daily, we are missing opportunities to 
know what al-Qaida is doing and planning. We were able to do that until 
about a week ago. Congress could easily approve the FISA bill. It 
passed out of this body by a significant majority. The House needs to 
pass it and send it to the President. What does that bill do? One of 
the things it does is make terrorists almost as accountable as drug 
dealers. Yes, we have stronger laws in this country for drug dealers 
and the way to interdict that than we do for terrorists, without having 
the FISA bill.
  What do the American people want Congress to do? They want us to 
improve their ability to access quality health care. They want us to 
have the capability under FISA, but they want us to concentrate on 
those areas that we have specific jurisdiction on, not just checking up 
on other people to see if they are getting their work done but checking 
up on ourselves to see if we are getting our work done. I think the 
economy, which includes health care, is the biggest issue the American 
people are interested in. Are we debating that? No. We are debating 
something I think we already have had 36 votes on in various forms, all 
of which failed. If you try something 36 times and it doesn't work, 
maybe you ought to move on to something else. I am suggesting health 
care is one of those issues we ought to be working on and that we could 
work on and that comes under our jurisdiction and we have direct 
responsibility for it. Or maybe education. I know the people of America 
want better education for their kids. They expect us to have as much as 
possible in place that will expedite that, that will work with the 
parents, the teachers, the administrators, and the communities to make 
sure our kids have the best job opportunities in the world. They want 
them to be able to have jobs and afford a home and have food for their 
family. They want a retirement system that helps them to be secure when 
they finish working.
  That is why I voted against debating this bill. We are not here to be 
nonresponsive and nonproductive by taking nonactions. Let's act. Let's 
sit down together and come to an agreement on what we can do to make 
health care better for this country. Let's talk about what we can do to 
improve education in this country and then let's make it happen. Let's 
spend the Senate's time on real legislation of substance--ones we are 
supposed to solve and that we have the jurisdiction to solve and ones 
we have the ability to solve and ones we have the desire to solve. I 
have been working with people on both sides of the aisle on a number of 
bills that are solvable--maybe not to perfection, but hardly anything 
here winds up with perfection. They can be solved with 100 percent 
agreement across the aisle on the 80 percent of the issues that we 
agree on. That would be real progress for America.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business has expired.
  Without objection, the Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________