A bill to strengthen controls on the export of surplus parts for F-14 fighter aircraft.

Mr. President, again, I would like to thank my old friend from Hawaii for his patience so that, as the Republican ranking member of the committee, I may make a statement about the bill itself and about the situation in Iraq. I thank him for his courtesy, and I will try not to take too long a period of time. So I thank my old friend from Hawaii.

Mr. President, we have reached another moment of importance this week in debating the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill. We will help set the course of the Nation's security policy and influence our participation in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of the debate, as we all know, will be about Iraq, and before I discuss that and my recent visit, I would note that many provisions in this bill constitute a good defense policy and will strengthen the ability of our country to defend itself.

Under the leadership of my good friend from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, I think we have crafted an excellent piece of legislation. I think a testament to his leadership is that the committee voted unanimously to report the bill, and it fully funds the President's $648 billion defense budget request. It provides necessary measures to try to bring under control waste, fraud, and abuse in defense procurement, and, frankly, it makes Members more accountable for their spending in the earmark process.

Again, I thank Senator Levin, the subcommittee chairs, and all the committee members for their work in bringing this issue to the floor.

Very briefly, we have authorized a 3.5-percent, across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. We have increased Army and Marine end strength to 525,400 and 189,000, respectively. The committee also approved $2.7 billion for items on the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirement list, including $775 million for reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, $207 million for aviation survivability equipment, $102 million for combat training centers and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment, night vision devices, and machine guns.

The bill also authorizes $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, known as MRAP vehicles, for all of the Services' known requirements.

The committee has come up with the money to support our troops, and I have no doubt the full Senate will follow step.

Money and policy statements are not all that is required at this moment in our national history. Courage is required--courage, not the great courage exhibited by the brave men and women fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a smaller measure: the courage necessary to put our country's interests before every personal or political consideration.

In this light, I would like to discuss America's involvement in Iraq, and finally I would like to make several points.

Final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus's counterinsurgency tactics arrived just several weeks ago. Last week I had the opportunity to visit with troops in theater. From what I saw and heard while there, I believe our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making progress in a number of areas. There are other areas where they are not. I would like to outline some of their efforts, not to argue that these areas have suddenly become safe--they have not; I want to emphasize the areas have not become safe--but to illustrate the progress our military has achieved under General Petraeus's new strategy.

Last year Anbar Province was believed to be lost to al-Qaida. On the map we see that U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaned out al-Qaida fighters from Ramadi and other areas of western Anbar. Tribal sheiks broke with the terrorists and joined the coalition side. It is a fact that some 16 out of the 24 sheiks in the Sunni area of Anbar Province have now joined with U.S. forces in their commitment to destroy al-Qaida in Anbar Province.

Ramadi, months ago, was Iraq's most dangerous city. It is now one of its safest. At considerable political risk, I point out that I visited, with Senator Graham, downtown Ramadi where the shopping areas were open. I did not visit without protection or without security forces with me. But the fact is, a short time ago it was one of the most dangerous cities in all of Iraq. Attacks are down from 30 to 35 a day in February to zero on most days now.

In Fallujah, Iraqi police have established numerous stations and have divided the city into gated districts. The violence has declined and local intelligence tips have proliferated. Throughout Anbar Province, thousands of young men are signing up for the police and Army, and the locals are taking the fight to al-Qaida. All 18 major tribes in the province are now onboard with the security plan. A year from now, the Iraqi Army and police could have total control of security in Ramadi, allowing American forces to safely draw down.

South of Baghdad, operation Phantom Thunder is intended to stop insurgents present in the Baghdad belts from originating attacks in the capital itself. A brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, which I visited, is operating in Baghdad belts that have been havens for al- Qaida. All soldiers in the brigade are living forward. That means they are in outposts away from the headquarters 24-7, living, working, and fighting alongside Iraqi military. Commanders report that the local sheiks

are increasingly siding with the coalition against al-Qaida.

Southeast of Baghdad, the military is targeting al-Qaida in safe havens they maintain along the Tigris River. In Baghdad itself, the military, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, continues to establish joint security stations and deploy throughout the city. These efforts have produced some positive results. Sectarian violence has fallen. Since January, the total number of car bombings and suicide attacks declined. In May and June, the number of locals coming forward with intelligence tips has risen.

Make no mistake, violence in Baghdad remains at unacceptably high levels, suicide bombers and other threats pose formidable challenges, and other difficulties abound. Nevertheless, there appears to be overall movement in the right direction.

I have no doubt how difficult suicide bombers are to counter. Ask the Israelis. They literally had to seal their borders with Gaza and the West Bank because of the way people who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to take the lives of others are able to get through and do these horrendous acts that we are exposed to quite often on our television screens and in our newspapers in America.

In Diyala Province, Iraqi and American troops have surged and are fighting to deny al-Qaida sanctuary in the city of Baqubah. For the first time since the war began, Americans showed up in force and did not quickly withdraw from the area. In response, locals have formed a new alliance with the coalition to counter al-Qaida.

Why are some of these people now turning against al-Qaida? One reason is the extreme cruelty that is practiced by al-Qaida on a routine basis, which has caused many people to reject that kind of extreme violence and cruelty inflicted on the local people. Diyala, which was the center of Abu Mus' Ab al-Zarqawi's caliphate, finally has the chance to turn aside the forces of extremism.

I offer these observations not to present a rosy scenario of the challenges we continue to face in Iraq. As last weekend's horrific bombing indicates so graphically, the threats to Iraqi stability have not gone away, nor are they likely to go away in the near future when our brave men and women in Iraq will continue to face great challenges.

What I do believe is, while the mission to bring a degree of security to Iraq and to Baghdad and its environs in particular in order to establish the necessary preconditions for political and economic progress--while that mission is still in its early stages, the progress our military has made should encourage us. It is also clear the overall strategy that General Petraeus has put into place, a traditional counterinsurgency tactic that emphasizes protecting a population and which gets our troops off of the bases and into the areas they are trying to protect--that this strategy is the correct one.

Some of my colleagues argue that we should return troops to the forward operating bases and confine their activities to training and targeted counterterrorism operations. That is precisely what we did for 3\1/2\ years, and the situation in Iraq got worse. Over 3\1/2\ years we had our troops from operating bases going out--search and destroy as we used to call it during the Vietnam war--and going back to their bases. That was a failed strategy from the beginning. I am surprised that any of my colleagues would advocate a return to the failed Rumsfeld-Casey strategy.

No one can be certain whether this new strategy, which remains in the early stages, can bring about greater stability. We can be sure, should the Senate seek to legislate an end to this strategy as it is just beginning, then we will fail for certain.

Now that the military effort in Iraq is showing some signs of progress, the space is opening for political progress. Yet rather than seizing the opportunity, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not functioning as it must. I repeat, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not functioning as it must. We see little evidence of reconciliation and little progress toward meeting the benchmarks laid out by the President. The Iraqi Government can function. The question is whether it will.

To encourage political progress, I believe we can find wisdom in several suggestions put forward recently by Henry Kissinger. Intensified negotiations by the Iraqi parties could limit violence, promote reconciliation, and put the political system on a more stable footing. We should promote dialog between the Iraqi Government and its Sunni Arab neighbors, specifically Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, in order to build broader international acceptance for the Iraqi central government in exchange for that government meeting specific obligations with respect to the protection and political participation of the Sunni minority. We should begin a broader effort to establish a basis for aid and even peacekeeping efforts by the international community, keyed to political progress in Iraq.

Taking such steps, we must recognize that no lasting political settlement can grow out of the U.S. withdrawal. On the contrary, a withdrawal must grow out of a political solution, a solution made possible by the imposition of security by coalition and Iraqi forces.

Secretary Kissinger is correct when he says ``precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster,'' one that ``would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia,'' produce greater violence among Iraqi factions, and embolden radical Islamists around the world.

The war between Iraqi factions would intensify. The

demonstration of American impotence would embolden radical

Islamism and further radicalize its disciples from Indonesia

and India to the suburbs of European capitals . . .

What America and the world need is not unilateral

withdrawal but a vision by the Bush administration of a

sustainable political end to the conflict.

As I said before, withdrawals must grow out of a political solution, not the other way around.

The Shias and the Sunnis and the Kurds:

They need the buttress of a diplomatic process that could

provide international support for carrying out any internal

agreements reached or to contain conflict if the internal

parties cannot agree and Iraq breaks up . . .

The American goal should be an international agreement

regarding the international status of Iraq. It would test

whether Iraq's neighbors as well as some more distant

countries are prepared to translate general concepts into

converging policies. It would provide a legal and political

framework to resist violations. These are the meaningful

benchmarks against which to test American withdrawals.

He goes on to point out:

Turkey has repeatedly emphasized it would resist a breakup

by force because of the radicalizing impact a Kurdish State

could have on Turkey's large Kurdish population. But this

would bring Turkey into unwanted conflict with the United

States and open a Pandora's box of other interventions.

Saudi Arabia and Jordan dread Shiite domination of Iraq,

especially if the Baghdad regime threatens to become a

satellite of Iran. The various Gulf Sheikdoms, the largest of

which is Kuwait, find themselves in an even more threatened

position.

Syria's attitudes are likely to be more ambivalent. Its

ties to Iran represent both a claim to status and a looming

vulnerability . . .

Given a wise and determined American diplomacy, even Iran

may be brought to conclude that the risks of continued

turmoil outweigh the temptations before it.

He goes on to talk about a multilateral framework.

A forum for diplomacy already exists in the foreign

ministers' conference that met recently at Sharm el-Sheikh,

Egypt. . . . It is in the United States' interests to turn

the conference into a working enterprise under strong, if

discrete, American leadership.

He goes on to say:

Neither the international system nor American public

opinion will accept as a permanent arrangement, an American

enclave maintained exclusively by American military power in

so volatile a region.

I believe Secretary Kissinger is correct. I believe he is correct when he bases the premise that precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster.

Many of my colleagues would like to believe that should any of the various amendments forcing withdrawal become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong.

Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. Our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already the terrorists are emboldened,

excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq but is rather debating when we should lose.

Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's deputy chief, said the United States is merely delaying our ``inevitable'' defeat in Iraq and that: ``The Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps toward victory.''

If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. The movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory. We saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al-Qaida following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe anything is possible, history is on their side, and they can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over.

Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Mus'ab al- Zarqawi before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: Establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel; none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is, Are we?

Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority would turn Iraq into a failed state and a terrorist sanctuary in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once before. It cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with impunity. We know that today there are terrorists in Iraq who are planning attacks against Americans. I do not think we should make this mistake twice.

Brent Scowcroft, whom we also know was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in the first place, has said:

The costs of staying are visible. The costs of getting out

are almost never discussed . . . If we get out before Iraq is

stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble

Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution.

One of my great heroes and role models and a person whom I have had the great honor of getting to know recently is Natan Sharansky, a man of inestimable courage and knowledge. He recently had a piece that ran Sunday in the Washington Post. The title of his piece is: ``Leave Iraq, Embrace for a Bigger Bloodbath.''

In his statement, he talks about:

The truth is that in totalitarian regimes, there are no

human rights. Period. The media do not criticize the

government. Parliaments do not check executive power. Courts

do not uphold due process. And human rights groups do not

file reports.

He talks about the moral divide that separates societies in which people are slaves, from societies in which people are free.

``Some human rights groups undermine the very cause they claim to champion,'' he says.

Consider one 2005 Amnesty International report on Iraq. It

notes that in the lawless climate of the first months after

Hussein's overthrow, reports of kidnappings, rapes and

killings of women and girls by criminal gangs rose. Iraqi

officers at a police station in Baghdad said in June 2003

that the number of reported rapes was ``substantially higher

than before the war.''

The implication was that human rights may not really be

improving in post-Hussein Iraq. But the organization ignored

the possibility that reports of rape at police stations may

have increased for the simple reason that under Hussein it

was the regime--which includes the police--that was doing the

raping.

He goes on to say:

A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a

bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by

comparison.

I am quoting from Natan Sharansky.

Without U.S. troops in place to quell some of the violence,

Iranian-backed Shiite militias would dramatically increase

their attacks on Sunnis; Sunni militias, backed by the Saudis

or others, would retaliate in kind, drawing more and more of

Iraq into a vicious cycle of violence. If Iraq descended into

full-blown civil war, the chaos could trigger similar clashes

throughout the region as Sunni-Shiite tensions spill across

Iraq's borders. The death toll and the displacement civilians

would climb exponentially.

He says:

Perhaps the greatest irony of the political debate over

Iraq is that many of Bush's critics, who accused his

administration of going blindly to war without considering

what would happen once Hussein's regime was toppled, now

blindly support a policy of withdrawing from Iraq without

considering what might follow.

In this respect, the debate over Iraq is beginning to look

a lot like the debate about the Vietnam War in the 1960s and

1970s. Then, too, the argument in the United States focused

primarily on whether U.S. forces should pull out. But many

who supported that withdrawal in the name of human rights did

not foresee the calamity that followed, which included

genocide in Cambodia, tens of thousands slaughtered in

Vietnam by the North Vietnamese and the tragedy of hundreds

of thousands of ``boat people.''

Mr. Sharansky lives in the neighborhood. Mr. Sharansky understands the meaning of the word ``freedom.'' Mr. Sharansky understands the meaning of the word ``sacrifice.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Kissinger and Sharansky articles.

Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we will invite further Iranian influence at a time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons, training fighters, providing resources and helping plan operations to

kill American soldiers and damage our efforts to bring stability to Iraq.

Iran will comfortably step into the power vacuum left by a U.S. withdrawal, and such an aggrandizement of fundamentalist power has great potential to spark greater Sunni-Shia conflict across the region.

Leaving prematurely would induce Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Egypt and Israel, Turkey and others, to feel their own security eroding and may well induce them to act in ways that prompt wider instability. The potential for genocide, wider war, spiralling oil prices, and the perception of strategic American defeat is real.

This fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and, more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war.

General Petraeus and his commanders believe they have a strategy that can, over time, lead to success in Iraq. General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come to Washington in September to report on the status of their efforts and those of the Iraqis. They ask two things of us: the time necessary to see whether their efforts can succeed and the political courage to support them in their work. I believe we should give them both.

I know that Senators are tired of this war, tired of the mounting death toll, tired of the many mistakes we have made in this war and the great effort it requires to reverse them, tired of the war's politicization and the degree to which it has become embroiled in partisan struggles and election strategies. I understand this fatigue. Yet I maintain that we, as elected leaders with a duty to our people and the security of their Nation, cannot let fatigue dictate our policies.

The soldiers I met last week have no illusions about the sacrifices necessary to achieve their mission. On July 4, I had the great privilege to be present as 588 troops reenlisted in the military and another 161 were naturalized as U.S. citizens. Tragically, two of those who were scheduled to be naturalized as U.S. citizens were killed very shortly before the ceremony.

Those men and women taking the oaths of enlistment and citizenship in the center of Saddam's al Faw Palace, they understand the many hardships made in our name. They have completed tour after tour away from their families, risking everything, everything for the security of this country. They do so because they understand the circumstances that, however great the costs of this war, the costs are immeasurably greater still if we abandon it prematurely. All they ask is that we support them in their noble mission.

I wish we had planned to fight this war correctly the first time. But we can no more turn back the clock to 2003 than we can wish away the consequences of defeat by imposing some artificial deadline for withdrawal. Last week in Iraq, I met the bravest men and women our country has to offer, and not one of them told me it was time to go or that the cause is lost.

They are frustrated with the Iraqi Government's lack of progress. They are buffeted by the winds of partisanship in Washington, talking today of surges and tomorrow of withdrawal, voting to confirm General Petraeus and then voting for a course that guarantees defeat. But in the end, they know the war in Iraq is part of a larger struggle, a war of moderation and stability against the forces of violence and extremism.

They recognize that if we simply pack up and leave, the war does not end--it merely gets harder.

Finally, I would like to give a couple of quotes. General Lynch, who is the third ID commander of the U.S. forces, says:

Pulling out before the mission was accomplished would be a

mess. We find the enemy regaining ground, reestablishing

sanctuaries, building more IEDs and the violence would

escalate.

GEN Anthony Zinni, one of my particular heroes, who opposed the war in Iraq, said:

. . . that we cannot simply pull out of Iraq, as much as we

may want to. The consequences of a destabilized and chaotic

Iraq, sitting in the center of a critical region of the

world, could have catastrophic implications. . . .There is no

short-term solution. It will take years to stabilize Iraq.

How many? I believe at least five to seven.

In the Baker Hamilton report, there is a lot of selective quoting. But I would like to point out that they said:

Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for

catastrophe in the role and the commitments of the United

States in initiating events that have led to the current

situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States

to abandon the country through a precipitous withdrawal of

troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq

would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and

further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of

adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results

would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering,

regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy.

Al-Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.

If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range

consequences could eventually require the United States to

return.

That is page 30 of the Iraq Study Group report.

Finally, I understand, I believe very well, how difficult this issue is for many of our Members. I know the sorrow and the frustration that they and their constituents feel. If I knew a great option as to how we could preserve our Nation's security and withdraw and stop the unfortunate casualties that are incurred by these brave young people, I would embrace it tomorrow.

Part of this debate is going to be proposals that people have made about how we can best leave. I intend to engage in vigorous discussion and debate. I would like to again begin this debate by pointing out I respect the views of my colleagues on this issue.

I understand their frustration. I intend to be respectful of their views, and I hope we can have a debate and discussion on this issue, as we consider various amendments, that will better inform the American people of both points of view. I hope over time somehow we can find a way to come together in this body and in this Nation because this war has divided this Nation in the most terrible way.

I saw it once before. I saw it once before, a long time ago, and I saw a defeated military, and I saw how long it took a military that was defeated to recover. I saw a divided nation beset by assassinations and riots and a breakdown in a civil society. That is why we need, in my view, to try to come together--and I do not know how we do that-- beginning with respecting each other's views so we can come together and hopefully end the tragedy of Iraq and at the same time ensure America's security.

I will be saying a lot more on this issue as we continue the debate. I say again, I respect the views of my colleagues. Then, finally, I again pay my compliments to the distinguished chairman of the committee, who put together, as is his wont, a bipartisan package that will ensure our Nation's security in the future, as exemplified again by a unanimous vote of the committee in reporting out the Defense authorization bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I certainly appreciate the passion of the Senator from California and her concern for the men and women serving in the military and those who have sacrificed a great deal already. The fact is, according to Lee Hamilton and Henry Kissinger, General Zinni, and according to literally almost every--not all-- respected national security expert in this country, it is acknowledged that we will have a lot more casualties.

The Senator's concern is emotional and well-founded and very moving. I am also moved by the fact that Henry Kissinger and Lee Hamilton say Congress should drop fixed deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. As Commander in Chief, the President needs flexibility on troop withdrawals. He will accept no bill that has a timeline or a fixed date for withdrawal. Lee Hamilton says:

The American people have the war in Iraq figured out. They

know American troops cannot settle Iraq's sectarian conflict,

and they want to withdraw responsibly. They do not want a

messy or sudden withdrawal to prompt wider sectarian strife

and an escalating humanitarian disaster.

To some degree, I have seen this movie before. I remember when the debate was going on on the floor of the Senate on our withdrawal from Cambodia on December 15, 1970. Mr. Gravel, now one of the candidates for President of the United States, said:

We come back to the argument of protecting American forces.

It is simple. Take the forces out and we do not have any

problem. It is simple. Do not get into Cambodia. Do not get

involved. Then we do not get into anything.

Yes, there was an argument on the floor of the Senate about withdrawal. There was an argument that prohibited the United States from being involved in Cambodia. Three million people were slaughtered--one of the great acts of genocide in modern history. Yes, we cared about American casualties after Vietnam and we withdrew. The North Vietnamese attacked and millions of people got on boats, thousands were killed in reeducation camps, and thousands were executed. I have seen this movie before. I have seen this movie before from the liberal left in America, who share no responsibility for what happened in Cambodia when we said, no, as I quote Senator Gravel:

We come back to the argument of protecting American forces.

It is simple. Take the forces out and we do not have any

problem. It is simple. Do not get into Cambodia. Do not get

involved. Then we do not get into anything.

I would like to finish my comments, and then I will be glad to yield to the Senator from California.

Continuing to quote Senator Gravel:

What would happen if Cambodia fell tomorrow? It may well

fall. . . . Obviously, it would become communistic. We would

have some gnashing of teeth, but life would go on. We would

have our traffic jams and everything else.

There were no traffic jams in Phnom Penh, Madam President, not a one. In fact, all of the people were killed or told to walk out of the city.

Life would go on. Basically, that would increase the

casualties of Americans in South Vietnam. That would be the

difference, except the American people are going to get up

and say, ``We do not want Americans getting killed at that

rate.''

. . . it means we are going to put more money in, and if

there is a danger that Cambodia will be overrun 6 months from

now, we would have to escalate to the next higher step, and

they will devise some way of getting American troops in

there. Or they would go the mercenary route until they

butcher enough of those people.

Interesting.

This, to my mind, is wrong, and adds nothing to our

security. Supposing South Vietnam fell, and became totally

Communist tomorrow, and then Cambodia fell and became totally

Communist; would that appreciably change the life of my

colleague from Kansas? Would that change his life?

The debate goes on and on. It is very worthwhile reviewing the debate that went on about Cambodia and Vietnam, not to mention, as I mentioned earlier, the impact of losing a war on America, our military, and others.

The Senator from California and I am sure the Senator from Delaware will speak very movingly about the strain on the families of the men and women and the strain on our troops.

By the way, we do in this authorization bill before us increase the size of the Marine Corps and the Army, and we need to increase it even more because of the challenges around the world--something that some of us have sought to achieve for a long period of time.

But the fact is, when you lose a war, the consequences of failure are far, far more severe on the military than the strain that is put on the military when they are fighting. It is a fact. It is a fact of military history. It is a fact of the war that we lost in Vietnam, which took us well over a decade to restore any kind of efficiency in our military.

I will be glad to yield to the Senator from California.

I ask for the regular order.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for that thoughtful question. The fact is, I do read the polls, and if the Senator from California had paid attention to my opening statement, she would have known that I made it very clear that I understand the frustration and sorrow of the American people. I also know a lot of us are not driven by polls. A lot of us are driven by principle, and a lot of us do what we think is right no matter what the polls say.

So I appreciate the concern of the Senator from California about whether I read the polls. I appreciate that greatly. But I do know also that when you send a signal, and I appreciate the Senator's concern--I was talking about the liberal left addressing the war in Cambodia, is what I was speaking of. The record is clear, and I will be glad to provide other quotes of a similar nature. But I do also know that those of us who study history, those of us who spend time in Iraq, those of us who spend time with various leaders, such as General Zinni, such as General Scowcroft, such as Secretary of State Baker, such as many others, we all know what the consequences of a date for withdrawal will be. And it isn't my opinion alone. It is shared by a broad variety of national security experts in this field.

I also point out that it does have an effect on the troops in the field when they see effort after effort after effort to withdraw, to force them to be withdrawn and, obviously, a failure of their mission.

I welcome this debate, as I said earlier. I think it is important to inform the American people. I think it is important to have a respectful exchange of views. And I will continue to respect the views of the Senator from California, but I will tell her that I have seen this movie before, and I have seen what happens when we have a defeated military and we have people who assure us that a withdrawal is without consequences.

I believe, as Henry Kissinger as recently as a few days ago said:

. . . precipitate withdrawal [from Iraq] would produce a

disaster. It would not end the war but shift it to other

areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The war

between the Iraqi functions would intensify. The

demonstration of American impotence would embolden radical

Islamism and further radicalize its disciples from Indonesia

and India to the suburbs of European capitals.

Natan Sharansky says the same thing. A person who knows about oppression, who knows about freedom, who served as a beacon to me and a hero in my entire life says:

A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a

bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by

comparison.

All of these are statements by people for whom I have the greatest respect. I hope we will heed some of their admonitions.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was interested in the last exchange. Let me just say that one of my heroes is the Senator from Arizona. I mean this sincerely. We use the phrase around here ``my friend.'' I consider him my friend. I believe if neither he nor I were Senators and I picked up a phone and

called him and said: I need you to show up at such-and-such a place, I can't tell you why, he would be there. I do not pretend to be his best friend in the world, but I admire him.

But I think I should point out a couple of things. No. 1, the Senator from California is not poll-driven. As I remember it, when the whole of the country was clamoring to go to war, the Senator from California stood up and voted against going to war. If I am not mistaken, it was viewed as political suicide at that time. I know the Senator from California, and I know she needs no defense, but I know her. If I know anybody who is not poll-driven, it is the Senator from California, No. 1.

No. 2, Henry Kissinger, Lee Hamilton, and Baker--all these people mentioned--they all say get out. None of them think the policy of this President makes any sense. So let's start off where they are. Henry Kissinger has endorsed the Biden plan and the Boxer plan and all the rest who have done it. They need a political solution.

I remind everybody that the Baker-Hamilton report set a date of March 2008 as a goal to get the majority of our troops out, if not all of them out. They talked about drawing down our troops. The President rejected that policy.

I don't know a serious person--there probably are--I don't know of any in the international community, I don't know of anybody in the foreign policy establishment in the United States of America, from Colin Powell, a former Secretary of State, to former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense in Republican administrations, who thinks this policy makes any sense.

Madam President, I say to my colleagues, to quote Gravel--I was here in 1972 while my friend John McCain, God love him, was in a prisoner- of-war camp. I was a 29-year-old Senator. Nobody agreed with Gravel. Give me a break. Quoting Gravel as the voice of the left--he was the voice of his voice. God love him, as my mother would say, and he still is the voice of his voice. Who agrees with Gravel? Maybe somebody does. But to quote him as if it was the Democratic position on Cambodia--go count the votes, how many votes Gravel got. That is not representative of even the left. This is a man who, God love him, nominated himself for Vice President. Come on. Come on.

And who is calling for a precipitous withdrawal? If I am not mistaken, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is not voting for a precipitous withdrawal. This is what we call, in the law business, which I have been practicing 34 years, a red herring.

The question is, Do we continue to send our kids into the middle of a meat grinder based on a policy that is fundamentally flawed? I don't think there are a dozen Republicans on that side of the aisle who agree with the President's strategy, nor do I believe, if the President had followed the recommendation of the Senator from Delaware and then the Senator from Arizona back before there was a civil war to put enough troops in to solidify the situation on the ground, we might not be here. The rationale he offered and I offered, if I am not mistaken, was: Mr. President, you don't have a strategy. Secretary of Defense, these are not a bunch of dead-enders, they are not a bunch of thugs. They are thugs, but you have a big problem, Mr. President.

If I am not mistaken, I heard the Senator from Arizona make those speeches 4 years ago. I heard him, along with me, call for more troops back then in order to get out sooner. We predicted there would be a civil war if we didn't gain control. Surprise, surprise, surprise. We have a civil war.

Look, I understand the political dilemmas in which we find ourselves: We have a President of our own party we have a problem with. I have been there. It never kept me from speaking up. If my colleagues recall, my friend from California, who is presiding, remembers, to use the trite expression, I beat President Clinton up and about the head, as they say in the neighborhood where I come from, to use force in Bosnia, to end a genocide. The President didn't agree with me. I was told: Calm down, don't put him in that spot. I am accustomed to taking on Presidents in my own party, and I know it is hard. It is hard. But I tell you what, name me any one of the people who were quoted here who thinks the policy we are pursuing now makes any sense.

Ever since the Democrats took control of the Congress back in January, we have been working to build pressure on the administration and, quite bluntly, on our Republican colleagues to change course in Iraq because I have reached a point where I think the President is impervious to information. There is a great expression, I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes referring to prejudice--and the President is not prejudiced, but I make the point. He said prejudice is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you shine upon it, the more tightly it closes. This administration is like the pupil of the eye: the more hard facts you give them to prove their policy is a failure, the tighter it closes and the less inclined to change they are. More and more Republicans--more and more Republicans--have stopped backing the President and started looking for ways to work with us to bring our soldiers home in a responsible way so we don't merely trade a dictator for chaos.

Let me say something I am going to be reminded of, I am sure, again and again and again. Having been here for 34 years, I know you should not make statements I am about to make lightly, but I am reminded of it by the comments made about Cambodia. On this, we have a sell-by date. You know when you buy milk, it says sell by a certain date or it turns sour? There is a sell-by date here, folks, for us to change policy. Because if we do not change policy in a radical way in this calendar year, I believe we will be left with one of two alternatives.

We have a chance now to change policy and maybe salvage--maybe salvage--a circumstance in Iraq, whereas we gradually leave, and we will not have traded a dictator for chaos and the possibility of a regional war. That is alternative one. I think that alternative two is Saigon revisited. We will be lifting American personnel off the roofs of buildings in the green zone if we do not change policy and pretty drastically.

There is not a single person in here that knows anything about the military who can tell me they think there is any possibility of us sustaining 160,000 forces in Iraq this time next year. What my friend from Arizona did not say--and he knows a great deal about this--is that leading generals in the military say straightforward that we are breaking--let me emphasize that--breaking the U.S. military--breaking the U.S. military. Let me put it another way. We have more professionally trained academy graduates, such as my friend from Arizona, leaving the military after 5 years than we have had any time in the last 30-plus years. The cream of the crop are being broken by this failed--this failed policy in Iraq.

What is worse is not that it is a failed policy, but it is impervious to recommendations made by the most informed people in both political parties inside and outside Government. What did the President do with the Baker-Hamilton Commission? Picked it up, gave it real lip service, and flipped it on the shelf. Who was on that commission? Two former Secretaries of State, who were Republicans; the present Secretary of Defense; some of the leading conservative voices in America on military matters; along with mainstream Democratic leaders. What did they do? What did they do? They blew it off. Now they are revisiting it. Now press reports are that maybe we have to have a plan B.

Look, it matters profoundly how we end this war. It matters to our soldiers, it matters to the Iraqis, and it matters to America's future security. As I said before, I don't want my son, a captain in the Army, going to Iraq, but he will go, if called. But I also don't want my grandson going. How we leave will determine whether my grandson goes. So far this President has offered absolutely no political solution to Iraq. None.

What does he say? He says surge troops. Why? To give the Iraqis breathing room. Why? So the Iraqis will get together and form a unity government that can be trusted by all the Iraqi people to govern the nation, allowing us to leave.

Not in the lifetime of anyone on this floor, including these talented young pages, will there be a unity government in Baghdad that has the confidence of all the Iraqi people, able to

maintain security, provide opportunity, and have a stable unity government. It will not happen.

I had a proposal over a year ago--and I have been roundly criticized for it, except for the Presiding Officer and a few others--wherein I laid out--and not because I am so smart; I happen to be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee because I have lasted longer than others-- but I laid out a comprehensive proposal. What does everybody say in this body? Everybody says, in and out of Government, that there is no military solution to Iraq, only a political solution. Name me a single person who has offered a political solution, except the Senator from California, myself, and the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback. Name me anyone. What is the political solution? What is the political solution my friend is offering? What is it?

The political solution is that somehow the Iraqis will have an epiphany--and I know Muslims don't have epiphanies; that is a Christian thing--they will have an epiphany and all of a sudden they are going to get together, realizing what is at stake, and form this unity government that can deliver.

I met with al-Maliki last year. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan eight times. I am heading over there again shortly. I sat with al- Maliki, and when I came back, the President asked my views. He was kind enough to ask what I thought. I said, I don't think al-Maliki has it in his bone marrow, in his heart or his brain to desire to reconcile with the Sunnis. Even if he did, he doesn't have the capacity.

What have we rested everything on here? We are about to have a report that was going to be filed this June 15, pointing out the Iraqis haven't met a single benchmark. Isn't that strange? What did we do? Every opportunity we had to help them along, we walked away from. I remember after they voted on their Constitution. I was there for the official vote, I stuck my finger in the ink that does not come off your finger. I went to the polling places. The Iraqis voted overwhelmingly for a constitution. Know what it says? I wish somebody would read it once in a while. It says, I believe it is article 1, we are a decentralized federal system. Then in articles 15, 16, 17, and 18, if I am not mistaken--this is from memory--it lays out how any 1 of the 18 governates, political subdivisions, basically, in Iraq can become a region, vote for their own constitution, and have their own local security. It also implies there will be an allocation of the oil resources through a constitutional amendment.

I remember immediately after that vote, coming back from my third or fourth trip, then meeting with the administration and saying: What are you going to do? And being told: Oh, it is too premature to push any of that. I said: Whoa, let me get this straight. How are you going to bring these folks together unless you help them implement the Constitution? No, no, too tough now--too tough.

This administration has not made, when given a choice, a single correct decision on Iraq. Hear me. That is a bold statement. I cannot think of a single decision when they have been faced with a choice that they have made the right choice. I cannot think of one. Way back, when the President asked me why I was calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, and the Vice President was in the room, in the Oval Office, I said: With all due respect, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, if, Mr. Vice President, you were not a constitutional officer, I would call for your resignation too. He looked at me and said: Why? I said: Because, Mr. President, name me one piece of advice either Rumsfeld or Cheney have given you in Iraq that has turned out to be right. Name me one. One. One. It is not about retribution, Mr. President, it is about competence. If all the advice you have been given is bad, don't you think it is a good idea to look for new advice--new advisers?

Look, I believe there is a comprehensive strategy to end this war responsibly and it has three parts. First, is a roadmap to bring most of our troops out and home by early next year. Two, is a detailed plan for what we leave behind, a political solution. Three, is the commitment that so long as there is a single American--a single American soldier--in Iraq, we should do everything in our power to protect them.

Let me go through this very briefly. First, bringing our troops home. Instead of escalating the war with no end in sight, we have to start to bring our troops home now and withdraw most by next year. This was the Baker-Hamilton recommendation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 more minutes.

If we don't start bringing home combat forces within the next few months, get them out of the midst of a civil war, we will have so soured the American people on the ability to do even the things that need be done that this President and the next President will be left with absolutely no option--absolutely no option--but to withdraw totally from that area and let the chips fall where they may.

You know, that is exactly what we started to propose, the Senator from California and others, Senator Levin, in the Biden-Hagel-Snowe- Levin resolution opposing the surge back in January and of the Biden- Levin provision in the Iraqi supplemental bill, the very thing the President vetoed. The common denominator in all these efforts has been to transition our troops to a more limited mission so we can start to bring them home and set the groundwork for being able to leave behind a political solution.

That is exactly what Senator Levin is doing today. He is taking the Biden-Levin amendment, now called the Levin-Reed amendment, and he is going back at it. I compliment him for it because we have to keep pushing in order to change the minds of our Republican friends by keeping pressure on them to start to vote for the troops and not the President.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Parliamentary inquiry: I understand I am supposed to speak after Senator Biden, but he told me before he left the floor that if he weren't here, I could reverse the order. I wonder if Senator Levin would give me permission to do that.

Madam President, this is a very important week for this country as we bring the issue of Iraq back to the Senate floor and listen to the American people, who are very clear. They want this war to end. They want the troops to come home. They know our service men and women have given everything there is to give, and more. They know the policies we have followed in Iraq since day one have backfired. They are looking to us.

If I might say where we are in this debate in this Senate, in my opinion, is between talk and action. It is very easy to talk and say: Oh, we need a change. We must have a change. It is important that we have a change, and call press conferences and say we need a change. It is time for change. But let's see how people vote. Will they vote for a sense of the Senate that has absolutely no force of law, which says it is the sense of the Senate we should change course, or will they vote to start redeploying our troops out of the middle of a civil war, out of chaos?

My colleagues know I represent the largest State in the Union, and we are taking a major hit. We have lost hundreds and hundreds of soldiers. We see thousands injured from our State. We see a National Guard that doesn't have the equipment it has to have. Some reports are the equipment is down 50 percent. What does that mean? It means if, God forbid, there is an earthquake, a fire, all the things we have to deal with in my beautiful State, who is going to protect the people? How much longer can we afford the bloodshed? The dollars--we are now told $12 billion a month is being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Presiding Officer and I share a lot of common interests. One of them is, for example, to make sure our kids can go to afterschool care, because that is the time they get in trouble. That is a high-risk time. Do my colleagues know what it would cost to fund afterschool care to the level that it is supposed to be, according to No Child Left Behind? It would cost $3 billion a year. We are funding it at $1 billion. Millions of kids are on the street. We spend $12 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan in 1 month, but we cannot find a couple of billion in a year for our children. We can't find the money to insure our children, to protect their health. Oh, no. We don't have the money for that. The President is going to veto this bill and veto that bill. He can't help the farmers. We can't do this, we can't do that, but $12 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan--no problem. No problem to save his reputation, to save him from having to prove to the world he was wrong. Well, it is one thing to have an argument with someone and have pride and say: You know, I am not going to admit I made a mistake. It is another thing when people are dying because of your mistake--every day.

Now, in November of 2006, the American people voted against the Iraq war. They elected Democrats. They want this war to end. They want this mission to end. They don't want our troops in the middle of a civil war, getting killed and getting maimed, getting post-traumatic stress, getting brain injuries that are the signature injury of this war.

We will be dealing with the problems of this war for decades to come. Anyone who lived through Vietnam knows that if you go on the streets today and look at who the homeless are, you know who they are. A third of them are veterans, most of them from Vietnam who never got over the experience. That is why Senator Lieberman and I have worked together to try and get the people who are coming back the mental health care they need. Senator Lieberman and I do not agree on this war. We are polar opposites on this war. But let me tell my colleagues, we are working together to get these troops the mental health care they need. Their marriages are breaking up. They can't sleep at night. They are having trouble with their employers. We have so many problems, and the American people expect us to fix it.

I see my friend Senator Biden is on the floor, and I will tell him I will speak for about another 10 minutes.

Now that my friend is on the floor, Senator Biden is the Senator who has looked ahead, who has said there is a light at the end of the tunnel. He has put forward a plan, and he put it forward a long time ago, for a diplomatic solution here, because there is no military solution. How many more explosive devices are going to blow up in the faces of our troops before we start bringing them home? How many more Iraqis are going to die--women, children? How many more faces are we going to look at on the front page before we get the guts to do the right thing?

The President doesn't listen. He didn't listen after the election. Oh, he said he did. He said he had a new strategy. What was it? The surge. The surge is not a new strategy. It is a military tactic, and it isn't working. Here is what the President said after he sent in more than 20,000 additional troops. He said:

Over time, we can expect to see . . . fewer brazen acts of

terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's

residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis

will gain confidence in their leaders, and the Government

will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in

other critical areas.

Wrong. The President was wrong again. The Washington Post reported on Sunday:

The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the

political and security goals or time lines President bush set

for it in January. . . .

And today the AP, Associated Press, reports:

Iraq fails to meet all reform goals.

Not even one goal was met, and our people are dying. They cannot meet

one goal. The violence continues unabated.

Since the President made his speech on January 10, after the election, when he said there was going to be a new strategy, 590 U.S. service men and women have been killed, 107 of whom did not live to see their 21st birthday. What kind of change is that this President brought?

The average number of daily attacks by insurgents and militias has not dropped below 150 per day. In Baghdad alone, there has been an average of 50 insurgent attacks a day. Over the weekend, more than 150 Iraqis were killed in one single bombing. These bombings are not isolated events. In June alone, there were 39 bombings in Iraq that resulted in multiple fatalities. The number of suicide attacks more than doubled in Iraq since the surge began--from 26 in January to 58 in April. What kind of new strategy is that? If that is a new strategy, it is worse than the other one. The average number of Iraqi civilians killed has risen to more than 100 per day.

The administration is failing on the security front; they are failing on the political front. They don't listen to Senator Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. They don't listen to Senator Lugar, the ranking member. They are all saying you have to have a political solution.

The administration is failing on the reconstruction front. Iraqis living in Baghdad still receive an average of 5.6 hours of electricity a day. The President can't even keep the lights on, let alone succeed in this surge.

Yesterday, Tony Snow said:

The President wants to withdraw troops based on the facts

on the ground, not on the matter of politics.

Well, I say to Tony Snow, elections have consequences, and you lost in 2006. The issue was Iraq and the policies on the ground are not working; they are failing. So whether you listen to politics or what is happening on the ground, the answer is the same.

On February 1, Tony Snow described the surge in this way:

We are talking about significant economic development

efforts; we're talking about significant political

reconciliation. These are the kinds of things we expect to

see.

Well, they have not seen them. We know the President is going to address the American people. I say to the President, tell the truth to the American people. Lay out what you expected, and then lay out the reality, and start getting the troops home. We have not seen improvements. Now our military is at the breaking point. Listen to retired generals. They don't have to toe the line. They tell the truth. Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the U.S. are rated ``not ready''--largely as a result of shortfalls in equipment that jeopardize their capability to respond to crises at home and abroad. In my State, our equipment is down 50 percent. So who will be responsible when we have a disaster, I say to the President? Who is going to be responsible? The same people who have brought us Iraq are going to bring us a crisis in our States. We already saw what happened in Katrina from incompetence. Let's match incompetence and lack of equipment and see what happens then.

What about Iraqi forces? On January 11, Secretary Gates said:

We are going to know pretty early on whether the Iraqis are

meeting their military commitments. . . .

He said we would know early on. The answer is they are not meeting their military commitments. After this weekend's violence, senior Iraqi officials called on Iraqi civilians to arm themselves and fight insurgents. That is from their Government. They are not telling the people this Government will protect you; that the Americans have trained 300,000 of us and we are ready to protect you. No. The answer is to arm yourselves so that when insurgents break down your door, you can kill them before they kill you. What a situation.

The Iraqi Vice President said:

The people have no choice but to take up their own defense.

We need to chart a new course on Iraq today. As Senator Lugar said:

Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay

policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting

our vital interests over the long term.

But the administration doesn't seem willing to chart a new course. As stated on the front page of today's Washington Post, ``GOP Dissent Spurs Change in Message But Not Course.'' That is another way of, I think, confusing the subject. Get up and give a great speech and then you vote against anything that has any teeth in it. You vote for something that says it is the sense of the Senate that things are not going well, rather than it is time to change this mission and get our troops out of the middle of a civil war, and make sure what we are doing is training the Iraqi soldiers, and that is fine, and going after al-Qaida, which is fine, protecting our forces, and that is fine, but get most of them out of there.

A change in message will not prevent the deaths of more Americans and will not salvage the President's failed policy. Over the next 2 weeks, we will have the opportunity to debate several amendments that will mandate a change of course on Iraq. I urge my colleagues, as strongly as I can, as someone who has stood up here time and time again and said we are making mistakes, to finally admit it--but not just admit it, do something about it. That is what we have to do. We have to change the reality of what is happening.

As the experts have told us over and over again, what are we doing here? We are in the middle of a civil war; we are neglecting the war on terror. We say we are fighting the terrorists there and we will stop them from coming here. That is what Tony Blair said, but it didn't stop anything. This is a recruitment tool for al-Qaida. Iraq is a recruitment tool for al-Qaida. Peter Bergman said that a long time ago when we went into Iraq. He is an expert on the Middle East. I don't want to recruit al-Qaida; I want to go after them. I voted to go after them after 9/11. I didn't vote to change course and go in another direction for regime change based on faulty information, faulty intelligence.

This week and next week, we will find out who talks in the Senate and who is willing to take action in the Senate. I hope the American people will look at the amendments we are voting on and, at the bottom line, understand which ones are just talk and which ones will actually result in redeployment of the troops out of a civil war--who walks the walk versus who talks the talk. Action means a deadline. Action means you change the mission. Action means you start bringing the troops home. Action doesn't mean a change in message, but a change of course. Reshuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titanic is not what we should be doing. We need to change course.

I have spoken with mothers and fathers who have lost sons and daughters. They have begged me in the most tearful way to spare other families what they are going through. If this war was working, that would be one thing. But there is no military solution here. We need to listen to what our chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is saying about a political solution, about separating the warring parties, about bringing in the nations of the region, and doing it now--before another soldier is blown up or breaks up with his wife because of the stress, or before another child has no dad or mom. The time is now.

I am so glad we are going to be doing the Defense authorization bill and have our opportunity to actually put our ideas into action. I will be supporting every single amendment that will result in a change of course, accountability, starting to bring the troops home.

I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Delaware for allowing me to go before he goes.

I yield the floor at this time.

[Applause in the Gallery.]

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding. The Senator made the point that the liberal left wants us out of Iraq. I want to make sure the Senator is aware that the latest polls show 70 percent of the American people want us to have a strategy to leave. And my question is, A, is the Senator aware of that? And, B, the followup to that question is, has the Senator read the various proposals, the Levin-Reed proposal, which I strongly support? There is no precipitous withdrawal.

I think the Senator is setting up a straw man, if you will, here. The fact is, those of us who want to leave want to do it in the right way-- --

And we also change the mission to continue training the troops, and so on. I want to make sure the Senator is aware of that point.

Madam President, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their leadership and working in a bipartisan fashion to unanimously pass the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 out of committee. I also thank my ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Senator Ensign, and the members of that committee for their work in bringing this about.

This bill exemplifies what can be achieved through the spirit of bipartisan cooperation to address a number of important defense priorities. As our distinguished chairman has already highlighted, this bill includes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed personnel, adds $4 billion to the President's budget for mine resistant vehicles to protect our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also authorizes fiscal year 2008 end strengths for the Army and Marine Corps, of 525,400 and 189,000 respectively, an increase of 13,000 for the Army and 9,000 for the Marine Corps, and it supports the transformation of our Armed Forces to meet the threats of the 21st century.

As chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, both Ranking Member Ensign and I worked with our colleagues to continue the subcommittee's strong commitment to increasing the readiness of the Armed Forces. In this legislation, we are providing support to projects and programs that are important to the readiness of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, both active and reserve components. In this regard, $188.4 billion is authorized to meet the services' operation and maintenance requirements to support the combat operations, improve the readiness of deploying and nondeployed forces, and to support the Army and Marine Corps plans to increase their fiscal year 2008 end strengths.

I believe all of us in the Senate are concerned that our military forces have what they need to be trained and ready, but I am particularly concerned about the readiness of our ground forces. This legislation before us today fully funds the Army and Marine Corps request for depot level maintenance. I am encouraged that neither the Army nor Marine Corps identified a shortage of funds for depot maintenance. While the Chief of Naval Operations did bring to this committee's attention a funding shortfall for Navy aircraft depot maintenance, we approved an increase of $77 million. In addition, we included $4.8 billion for the procurement of ammunition of all types to support the services' war fighting, training, and war reserve requirements.

With regard to the Department of Defense's management and acquisition policy, I am particularly pleased this bill includes a provision requiring, for the first time, that the Department of Defense have a chief management officer. The Comptroller General has told the members of this committee on numerous occasions that the Department needs to do this to ensure that the Department's many high-risk areas get the top- level management attention they deserve.

Other important acquisition reform provisions included in this bill are as follows: a provision that would provide the resources that DOD needs to address the shortcomings in its acquisition workforce; a series of provisions that would tighten DOD management of contract services; a provision that would ensure that our commanders on the battlefield have the authority they need to establish rules for armed contractors in an area of combat operations; a provision establishing guidelines for DOD to use in determining whether savings are ``substantial'' for the purpose of justifying multiyear contracts; and a provision that would require that each of the Assistant Secretaries for Acquisition in the military departments be assisted by a three-star military deputy who has significant acquisition experience. I believe these provisions, taken together, will lead to substantial improvements in the DOD acquisition process.

I am particularly pleased this year's authorization bill includes a provision to establish a Director of Corrosion Control Policy and Oversight, and funding for corrosion prevention and control programs. Corrosion is a costly problem. In fact, it is one of the largest costs in the life cycle of weapons systems. In addition, corrosion reduces military readiness, as the need to repair or replace corrosion damage increases the downtime of critical military assets. Consequently, I firmly believe that cohesive corrosion control programs are integral to maintaining military readiness. This critical maintenance activity increases the life of multimillion dollar weapons systems and ensures their availability during times of crisis. Effective corrosion control should be made a key component of the Department of Defense's resetting strategy and funds should be allocated accordingly.

This legislation also includes my legislation to establish a National Language Council to develop a long-term and comprehensive language strategy and oversee the implementation of that strategy. This will ensure that the administration's current efforts to promote foreign language competency will develop into an organized and concerted effort to improve the Nation's foreign language capabilities.

We also make a valuable and important investment in our infrastructure by providing an additional $461 million above the budget request to repair, replace, and modernize our aging defense facilities and improve the quality of life and the productivity of our military. Furthermore, we make a true commitment to provide quality health care for all beneficiaries, including authorizing $24.6 billion for the Defense Health Program, authorizing the use of Federal pricing for drugs dispensed through the TRICARE retail program. In addition, we reject the administration's proposal to give DOD broad authority to increase TRICARE program cost-sharing amounts for military retirees and their dependents.

As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am able to look at the issue of seamless transition from military to civilian life from two different perspectives and, at the appropriate time, I will be offering an amendment to the underlying bill to improve care specifically for veterans. My friend and colleague Chairman Levin and I have worked together on these issues. We held a joint hearing on April 12 and have developed a thoughtful set of provisions to deal with the VA's response to traumatic brain injuries, also known as TBI and also known as invisible wounds. The amendment I will be offering includes provisions recently approved by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs at our markup on June 27. In fact, this amendment is a direct product of the committee's work to address seamless transition issues and is the corresponding piece to S. 1606, the Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act.

At the heart of my amendment are the improvements to TBI care. Ranking Member Craig and I worked on these traumatic brain injury provisions and they have garnered the support of many organizations, including the American Academy of Neurology, the Brain Injury Association of America, and the Disabled American Veterans. The VA was caught flat-footed by the large number of devastating TBI cases resulting from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. My amendment would go a long way toward resolving the difficulties faced by soldiers afflicted with TBI by providing comprehensive TBI

legislation. It would require individual rehabilitation plans for veterans with traumatic brain injury and authorizes the use of non-VA facilities for the best TBI treatment available. The amendment also requires much more research and education for severe TBI. We have even developed a pilot program for assisted living services for veterans with TBI.

My amendment would also extend the period of automatic eligibility for VA health care from 2 to 5 years for servicemembers returning from combat. It would ensure access to care for conditions that may not be apparent when a servicemember first leaves active duty and would contribute to a seamless transition from military to civilian life. In addition, this amendment requires a preliminary mental health evaluation be conducted within 30 days of a servicemember's request. VA must be prodded to ensure timely access to mental health care. I thank Senator Obama for working with me on this important provision.

Finally, our ongoing global operations have utilized the reserve components on an unprecedented scale. When these citizen soldiers redeploy, it is essential that VA include them in their outreach efforts. To recognize the importance of the National Guard and Reserve and to acknowledge their contributions to the Nation's efforts, my amendment redefines the VA's definition by specifically including them in the outreach program.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has taken bold and necessary steps in this legislation that will provide the necessary funds and management reforms required to support our service men and women while allowing the military to continue to meet our Nation's future defense needs.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1441) to prohibit the sale by the Department of Defense of parts for F-14 fighter aircraft, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1441, a bill that will put an end to military surplus sales that may inadvertently be helping to sustain Iran's Air Force.

First, I would like to thank Chairman Lantos and Chairman Skelton for their leadership on this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this critical national security issue.

The background to this problem begins in the 1970s when our country sold F-14 Tomcats to Iran's pro-Western secular government. Iran was a close ally of the United States at the time and needed the capabilities of the F-14 in a dangerous part of the world. Times have changed, unfortunately. And Iran has now called for the destruction of Israel and is refining uranium in what many observers from the non- proliferation community believe is an attempt to develop the fuel necessary for an atomic weapon.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and is likely responsible for arming insurgents in Iraq. Iran has ignored the calls of the international community for greater transparency in its nuclear power research and development, and the United Nations Security Council recently imposed stricter economic sanctions on Iran as a result.

When the United States Navy retired the F-14 fleet last September, that left Iran as the only nation still flying those aircraft. Iran has been trying to get around United States sanctions and export controls to secure the parts necessary to keep the F-14 flying. Recent

undercover investigations and reports have made it clear that Iran may have been successful.

Following an undercover investigation, the GAO reported in 2006 that acquiring surplus military hardware not properly demilitarized is disturbingly easy.

In January of this year, the Associated Press reported that front companies were able to secretly purchase military parts for resale in Iran. Iran is the only nation still using the F-14. There are no other legitimate buyers overseas.

In order to address this issue, I worked with my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce. And after a joint trip to Israel, we introduced H.R. 1441, which will prevent the United States Government from selling approximately 10,000 parts that are unique only to the F-14 Tomcat.

This legislation will prohibit the military, as well as any other private company, from selling F-14-specific parts. It is also, Mr. Speaker, a complete ban on all international sales of parts specific to the F-14.

We cannot take the risk that components unique to the F-14 could be resold to Iran. The text of this bill was included in the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization bill, H.R. 1585, as section 1049.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the language in its markup of that bill, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs has already marked up the specific bill and has reported it favorably.

Mr. Speaker, we must take the responsibility to ensure that our military hardware never falls into the hands of nations hostile to the United States and can never be used against our men and women in uniform and not used against our allies.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1441.

I include for the Record an exchange of letters related to this bill between Chairman Skelton of the Armed Services Committee and Chairman Lantos of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

June 8, 2007.

Hon. Tom Lantos,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman, On March 27, 2007, the Committee on

Foreign Affairs ordered reported favorably H.R. 1441, ``The

Stop Arming Iran Act.'' This legislation contains subject

matter within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on

Armed Services, and thus, was sequentially referred to the

Committee on Armed Services by the Parliamentarian for the

House.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1441 and

the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.

Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over

this legislation, the Committee on Armed Services will waive

further consideration of H.R. 1441. I do so with the

understanding that by waiving further consideration of the

bill, the Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional

claims over similar measures. In the event of a conference

with the Senate on this bill, the Committee on Armed Services

reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees.

I would appreciate the inclusion of this letter and a copy

of the response in your Committee's report on H.R. 1441 and

in the Congressional Record during consideration of the

measure on the House floor.

Very truly yours,

Ike Skelton

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his comments, and I indeed think that this is an important piece of legislation that will further support our interests abroad and make sure that parts like the F-14 Tomcat are not sold to the Iranians.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.