Walnut Canyon Study Act of 2007

Reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to object, I ask my colleague from Kentucky if he would amend his request to have myself recognized after he finishes speaking.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak out once again against the war in Iraq and in support of our troops. Today, we had an opportunity to do just that--to support the troops, troops such as these who are pictured here who actually have been serving our country and recently became U.S. citizens.

``Support the troops''--how many times have we heard that said on the floor of the Senate? We have heard that refrain time and time again from the very people who earlier today voted against the very essence of what it is to support the troops.

From the beginning of the Iraq war, we have heard its supporters say that somehow supporting the war equals supporting the troops. But from the beginning of this fiasco, it has been clear that the troops have been a secondary consideration for those who were bent on rushing into an ill-conceived war. Going to war without a postwar plan to stabilize Iraq, is that supporting the troops? Refusing to listen to generals about the troop levels needed to win the peace, is that about supporting the troops? Sending our soldiers into a war zone without the appropriate bulletproof vests, without the appropriate vehicles, with inferior equipment, is that supporting the troops? Letting Walter Reed's conditions worsen, is that supporting the troops? Extending tours of duty without regard to the consequences to our soldiers and their families, is that supporting the troops? Giving our soldiers only a brief stop at home before shipping them back in to a civil war in Iraq, is that supporting the troops?

It seems to me that the very least we can do for our brave men and women who carry out their orders with exquisite skill and bravery in an unimaginable situation in Iraq is to give them enough time to catch their breath before they are sent back.

Clearly, never have so few been asked to do so much in these continuing deployments. If one thinks about it, the number of men and women who are presently deployed and have been deployed compared to 300 million people in this country, how is it so few have been asked to do and sacrifice so much.

Today, the Republican leadership wouldn't even let them have the right opportunity for the respite they need in between these continuing deployments, deployments that are taking our troops and virtually grilling them into the ground. A Republican minority stopped a majority of the Senate and overwhelmingly the will of the American people in supporting the troops through a procedural roadblock. This should not have been a partisan effort by Republicans. It should not have been. In essence, those who put those roadblocks up have voted once again to stay the course, no change to the President's failed war policy, no alteration to this dead-end course, not even to give our troops some well-deserved rest.

I applaud my colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, as well as my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel,

both decorated combat veterans who stood up for our troops in their amendment. They know personally--this is not esoteric for them--they know personally of the sacrifice our soldiers make each and every day for the country they love, the country we all love. But they are not pawns. They are the best and bravest, and they deserve better than what the Senate did today.

I hope the American people speak out in support of our troops. I ask those Senators who oppose giving them the appropriate recess between deployment, the appropriate time so that they, even having to go back into the war, could have the appropriate time, as the military itself devises and has as goals as to what it should be, that at least for whatever time they are deployed abroad, that they have that time back here at home, back here with their families, back here to be able to rejuvenate themselves and go back to do the mission which they willfully do, could we not do that much for them? I hope the American people will speak out with an incredibly loud voice to our colleagues who don't believe they deserve that much, who used a procedural roadblock.

Mr. President, I am outraged.

As someone who voted against the war, I am outraged that 4 years after the start of an elective and unnecessary war which we were led into based on false premises and false promises, we have not yet ended it.

I am outraged that every delay in moving toward a transition out of Iraq and ending the war in Iraq means more American lives lost.

I am outraged that we have spent $450 billion on this war and that for each additional month we continue to be engaged in Iraq under the present course, we spend another $10 billion a month.

I am outraged that the President's war has cost us our prestige and influence abroad and has undermined our security around the world.

I am outraged that the war in Iraq has kept our focus away from the war in Afghanistan, the birthplace of the Taliban, home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama bin Laden, and the place where the attacks of September 11 were planned.

I am outraged that we always hear the same story and the same promises from this administration.

As I listen to some of my colleagues, as well as the administration, fear should not be the basis for our policy. But that is what the administration and its supporters in the Senate offer each time--fear. The Bush administration always says that change is just around the corner, that we should wait just a little longer for success. The Bush administration always has a new plan with new benchmarks and new deadlines, but they never meet those benchmarks or those deadlines, so they just change them. The Bush administration always says we are making progress on the ground. Yet the facts contradict them.

The truth is that we still haven't stopped the insurgency, that hundreds of Iraqis are still being killed each day, and that the Iraqi Government still hasn't acted on key benchmarks. The truth is that we are being driven down a dead-end street by an administration without a roadmap for a lasting peace.

So I say, as Senator Robert Kennedy did in March of 1968 in a speech about Vietnam:

We are entitled to ask--we are required to ask how many

more men, how many more lives, how much more destruction will

be asked, to provide the military victory that is always just

around the corner, to pour into this bottomless pit of our

dreams?

But this question the administration does not and cannot

answer. It has no answer--none, but the ever-expanding use of

military force and the lives of our brave soldiers, in a

conflict where military force has failed to solve anything in

the past.

Those were his words then. I believe they ring true today. Today, we are living with the consequences of the administration's failed policy. Over 3,600 American troops have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of this war, including 87 servicemembers with ties to my home State of New Jersey. April and May was the deadliest 2-month period of the war for U.S. troops, with 230 servicemembers killed. We have now spent over $400 billion on the war in Iraq. We continue a burn rate of about $10 billion a month. Frankly, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I never believed the administration's estimate that the so-called surge would cost only $5.6 billion, and these new numbers prove once again that we have been misled.

This was a terrible weekend, with over 250 people killed in Iraq, including 150 Iraqis who perished in a bombing that the New York Times described as ``one of the deadliest, if not the deadliest'' single bombing since the start of the war. Suicide attacks have more than doubled across Iraq, from 26 in January to 58 in April.

In terms of reconstruction, oil production in Iraq is still lower than it was before the war 4 years ago. Baghdad is getting under 6 hours of electricity a day, significantly less than before the war. And the President's escalation plan, the so-called surge, simply isn't achieving the results we were promised.

Imagine that, another broken promise. Just like when we were told: We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. Just like we were told about the yellow cake uranium from Niger, when the President came before the Congress in his State of the Union speech and used that term to engender support for his war policy. We found out it wasn't true, and that ended up having a CIA agent outed because her husband, a former United States Ambassador, proved that, in fact, that wasn't true. If that had been under any other administration, it would have been called treason. Just like we were told: We will be greeted as liberators. Just as the President landed on the aircraft carrier with a big banner behind him saying ``Mission Accomplished.'' How many lives have been lost since mission accomplished? Just like ``the insurgency is in its last throes.'' We have heard that so many times.

Well, it is about time to add the surge to that infamous list. I think we all knew that the strategy to secure Baghdad would simply lead insurgents to move into other areas, and that is exactly what has happened.

As Anthony Cordesman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies said in recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

The U.S. is having to expand its counterinsurgency

operations broadly outside Baghdad. Limited tactical

successes really don't matter unless such casualties include

substantial cadres of leaders and experts that cannot be

easily and rapidly replaced. The insurgents can simply

disperse, stand down, and regroup.

Now, I know the administration likes to tout victories in individual Iraqi provinces or cities as markers of success, but I believe all we are seeing is what is sometimes called the balloon effect. We clamp down on insurgents in one area, they spring up in another. We never actually solve the problem.

Let's be frank about the status of the Iraqi Government. The New York Times describes the Iraqi Parliament and Cabinet as ``barely able to function.'' Apparently, 12 Cabinet members aren't even attending Cabinet meetings anymore; 74 out of the 275 Members of Parliament are boycotting the Parliament. And numerous others don't attend anyway.

We have heard a lot about benchmarks. They keep changing, of course. It is now clear to anyone and should be to everyone that the Iraqi Government will not meet any of the much-touted benchmarks the Bush administration has outlined. I believe we are engaged in a ceaseless act of repetitive denial by this administration.

In fact, the Bush administration is shortly going to try to present a completely new set of ``accomplishments'' and downplay their previous benchmarks. A recent Washington Post article notes:

Those achievements are markedly different from the

benchmarks Bush set when he announced his decision to send

tens of thousands of additional American troops to Iraq.

Let's take a look at the benchmarks the Bush administration told us would be met.

We were told that by the end of 2006 a provincial election law would be approved and new election laws would be put in place. It is the middle of 2007. That benchmark has not been met.

We were told the Iraqis would approve a law for debaathification. But that benchmark has not been met.

We were told the Iraqis would create a law to help restrain sectarian militias. That benchmark has not been met.

We were told the Iraqis would establish a law to regulate the oil industry

and share revenues. That benchmark has not been met.

We were told by March the Iraqi Government was supposed to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments. But, again, that benchmark has not been met.

As I have said time and time again, benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. And I am sick and tired of hearing about goals that are never met. Yet despite this lack of results, the administration refuses to admit their strategy has failed. Instead, they want to move the goalpost. They just want to alter their perception of reality.

Finally, I cannot close without discussing the cost of the war in Iraq. Our expenditures in Iraq saddle our Nation's finances and our children's future. We spend approximately $10 billion a month in Iraq. We spend $2.5 billion a week in Iraq. We spend more than $328 million every day in Iraq. And we spend more than $13.5 million an hour--an hour--in Iraq.

Let me just put our Iraq spending in perspective. For what we spend in a month and a half in Iraq, we could fully fund No Child Left Behind next year, ensuring that every school district in the United States has the funds promised to them to meet the goals of the law for a quality education for every child. Just for what we spend in 1\1/2\ months, we could meet all of that goal next year.

For what we spend in approximately 3 days in Iraq, and with an additional $1 billion, we could substantially improve security at our Nation's ports, including increased scanning of cargo containers. I represent one of the largest ports on the eastern seaboard, clearly one of our huge gaping holes to our domestic security.

For what we spend in just over 2 months in Iraq, we could pay the $21 billion cost of implementing the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our homeland, implementations that would truly make our country, its communities, and its families far more secure. Yet we need to look beyond the economic cost of the war at its true cost: 3,609 American lives. That has no price to it. It is invaluable. These are the sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives of fellow Americans, and we now have more than 26,695 sons and daughters of America who are wounded in ways that will affect their lives forever. I hope a grateful nation remembers them now and in the future.

In conclusion, I ask, Mr. President, how many more deadlines will be missed? How many more benchmarks will be set, not met, and then forgotten? How many more times will we be told to wait just a few more months? How many more times will the administration say that change will happen soon, 4 years later? How many more broken promises? And how many lives must be lost in the meantime? How long will this administration wait to come to the inevitable conclusion that we must transition out of this war?

Mr. President, it is over. Your failed strategy, your ill-conceived war must come to an end before more damage is done, before more lives are lost, before more national treasure is squandered. Let's get our troops home so we can start the hard work of meeting our domestic homeland security challenges, of meeting our security challenges elsewhere in the world--for which we have real challenges--of strengthening our foreign policy and mending our international relations.

I know as I visit back in New Jersey, so many of my constituents say to me: Why is it that you all in the Senate cannot just simply put an end and seek the transition to this war? To do that, we truly need profiles in courage in the Senate. We need bipartisan support. Democrats do not have the 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster, the procedural process by which the Republican minority thwarts the will of a majority of the Senate and the American people, nor do we have the 67 votes needed to override a Presidential veto. It will take colleagues from both sides of the aisle to meet that challenge.

I challenge my Republican colleagues, who now say they are dismayed and have a different view than the President--and I applaud them for coming to that conclusion. And I say it is time to back their words with meaningful votes here on the floor of the Senate--now, before we lose more lives and national treasure. Now is the time, not tomorrow. Now is the time, not next month. Now is the time, not next year.

I will end today by reminding all of us of what Senator Robert Kennedy said about the war in Vietnam. He said:

Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy

is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which

to live. Now, as ever, we do ourselves best justice when we

measure ourselves against ancient tests, as in the Antigone

of Sophocles, where he said, ``All men make mistakes, but a

good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and

repairs the evil. The only sin is pride.''

The only sin is pride. The only sin is pride. Let's not allow pride to be the obstacle to changing our course in Iraq, to making sure we save more lives of the men and women who bravely answer the call of the Nation's trumpets. Let's make sure ultimately we strengthen our security by having the resources both at home and abroad to meet our real challenges. Let's change the course. And over the next week, we will have that opportunity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I appreciate the Senator yielding. I don't know whether he voted for cloture on the amendment offered by Senator Webb and Senator Hagel. But when we talk about supporting the troops, here are two Members of this body who are distinguished, decorated combat veterans who know what it is to fight a war, and they both, as well as others, said it is critical for our troops to have a rotational cycle

that gives them some respite equal to the time they are deployed. I don't know why we couldn't have had a straight up-or-down vote. That would be about supporting the troops.

Last, I say to my distinguished friend, we can have differences on the war. I believe that, in fact, having these blinders in which we continue to say ``stay the course regardless of consequences'' is ultimately leading us down a road that is not in the best interests of the United States and its security. So we differ.

I hope you will consider voting for the Levin-Reed amendment. That will give us an opportunity to begin the end of the war and transition out in a way that ultimately will secure the United States.

Mr. President, I am comfortable with the Senator from Arizona beginning the discussion. We are waiting for the chairman to arrive.

I thank the Senator for yielding for a factual reference on the one point the Senator from Arizona raised, and I will reserve the remainder of my time for later on.

There is a waiver provision in this amendment that allows anyone who wants to return to duty in Iraq or Afghanistan to do so and without affecting the rights of other people to be deployed, according to the amendment.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Arizona wanted to have 2 minutes. Does he want to take it now?

How much time does the Republican side have?

I wish to reserve 2 minutes for our side.

Mr. President, first I say I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation that has been made over the past couple of days with respect to this amendment.

Before I get into the amendment, I wish also to express, again, my admiration for the Senator from Arizona--we have been friends for many years--and my appreciation for his service. I watched his comments yesterday with respect to the end of the time in Southeast Asia. I think he knows I still adamantly support what we attempted to do in Vietnam and I have written about those days with some frequency and clarity over the years. In my view, this is not about the situation in Southeast Asia.

I warned against what I believe is the strategic blundering of going into Iraq in the first place, but I will set that aside today. There was a lot of talk this morning and yesterday, some of it about process--the Senator from New Hampshire mentioning he wanted to see side by side, that he was going to oppose this amendment based on the cloture process itself.

The Senator from South Carolina--I want to address some of the things he said. He keeps talking about the political moment here. I don't think there is a political moment in this issue. There may be on other issues. I approach this issue from the perspective, among others, as someone who served 3 years as Assistant Secretary of Defense, where I was responsible for dealing with mobilization issues and was required to learn with a great deal of detail what they used to call war maps. Those are manpower flow issues.

I also point out, because of the some of the other comments that were just made, that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, when he took office, mentioned that his ultimate goal was to see a 2:1 rotational cycle with respect to deployment of marines. I point that out because this amendment sets out a bare minimum floor for the use of American troops of 1:1. If you have been gone a year, you should get a year back. If you have been gone 7 months, you should get 7 months back. If we were arguing optimal scenarios, I would understand a little bit more the pushback we are getting from the other side. We are not trying to put optimal historical scenarios on the table here. We are trying to get a bare minimum floor that will protect the well-being of our troops.

We have data that has been shown--we don't need to go over it today-- about how this is affecting the retention of high-quality people, how it is affecting emotional difficulties people are having. We need to step forward and act responsibly.

Some Republicans have questioned the constitutionality of this amendment. There is no issue here. Article I section 8 says the Congress has the power to make rules for government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and we have done so many times in the past. Some say this is meddling in the President's warmaking authority. To the contrary, the Congress has the power and the duty to place proper restraints on executive authority, particularly when it comes to the well-being of our troops. We did that in Korea in 1951.

It was not, as the Senator from South Carolina might allege, meddling in the Korean war. It was a situation where the Department of Defense was sending soldiers overseas before they had been fully trained. We stepped in, the Congress, our predecessors, stepped in. They put a law into place saying you cannot deploy anybody until they have been in the military at least 120 days. This is what we are doing, only on the other end of it.

We are saying: After 4 years of a ground occupation in Iraq, we have a responsibility to get some stability into the operational tempo. Yesterday my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, warned that the amendment would, in his words, alter the traditional power of the President as it relates to all future wars, any war now, or series of wars in the future.

My friend, I hope, will reread my amendment carefully. He will find that this amendment applies to Iraq, Afghanistan, and certain NATO- sponsored activities. Senator Sessions also stated his concerns, as he put it, that this is another amendment trying to set another strategy written by a group sitting in air-conditioned offices.

I would like to emphasize a few points. The first is, this amendment does not represent strategy. It is an amendment that protects the well- being of our troops by setting a bare minimum floor on how they are being used no matter what strategy is in place.

Second, the experiences that led some of us to this conclusion did not come from sitting in air-conditioned offices. I would like to point out, as far as I can determine, Senator Chuck Hagel is the only ground combat veteran on the other side of the aisle. He certainly is the only ground combat veteran from Vietnam on the other side of the aisle. He is a lead cosponsor of this amendment.

On this side of the aisle, all the ground combat veterans are cosponsors, along with 35 Members of the Senate. I believe, if I may say, we collectively understand a truth acquired the hard way and a truth that transcends politics. We are trying in all good faith to do something about it.

Finally, I would like to point out, again, this amendment has the full support of the Military Officers Association of America. This is the largest association of military officers in the country, 368,000 members. And these are officers who are not restrained from speaking their opinions by having to serve inside today's political process.

VADM Norbert Ryan wrote a letter--I will quote one paragraph of it--a letter supporting the necessity of this amendment. He pointed out his association is very concerned that steps must be taken to protect our most precious military asset, the All-Volunteer Force, from having to bear such a disproportionate share of national wartime sacrifice.

He also said, and I think this is vital to the decision we are making on this amendment:

If we are not better stewards of our troops and their

families in the future than we have been in the recent past,

our organization believes strongly that we will be putting

the all-volunteer force at unacceptable risk.

These officers, 368,000, are joining us in a very real concern; that under current policy many of our ground forces are actually spending more time in Iraq than they are at home. This is 4 years into an occupation. There is not a strategic justification for this at this point in our commitment in Iraq. And there is no political reason, in my view, to oppose an amendment that places proper restraints on this sort of conduct by the executive branch.

This amendment recognizes that the Congress has a duty to exercise leadership when it comes to the well-being of our men and women in uniform. In the words of Admiral Ryan, it is a recognition that we have a responsibility to become better stewards of our troops and their families than we have been in the recent past.

I will say to my colleagues, as I did yesterday, the American people are watching us. They are watching us closely with the expectation that we will finally take some sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which our troops are being sent again and again.

They are tired of the posturing that is giving the Congress such a bad reputation. They are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability and to protect this administration from accountability. They are looking for concrete action that will protect the well-being of our men and women in uniform.

So the question in this amendment is not whether you support this war or whether you don't, it is not whether you want to wait until July or September to see whether one particular set of opinions or benchmarks or summaries might be coming in. The question is, more than 4 years into the ground operations in Iraq, that we owe stability and a reasonable cycle of deployment to the men and women who are carrying our Nation's burden. That is the question. That is the purpose of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would just particularly like to, again, emphasize that there are no constitutional issues here. There is no issue of moving units around or micromanagement in the way that the Senator from South Carolina was alleging. This is a very simple amendment, and I am ready to proceed to a vote.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to add my support to the Senator's amendment. I would state again my appreciation for his service to our country and for all the tough stands he has been willing to take here over the past few years on these vital issues.

Before I speak on this amendment, I would like to state briefly it is my understanding that in a press conference after the vote of this morning, when my earlier amendment failed to receive 60 votes, received 56 votes, there were some comments made by Members of the other party about my mentioning that in my amendment all of the ground combat veterans in the Senate were cosponsors of my amendment.

In the emotion of the time, apparently it was turned around into an assertion that I was trying to make a distinction about quality of service, or that people of one type of military background were being pitted against another. I say I regret anyone would think that speaking affirmatively about service, about service of individuals, was somehow speaking negatively about the service of anyone else or about people who have not served. I think that it is interesting to point out that in the amendment I offered, every ground combat veteran who is in the Senate cosponsored it. I am grateful for that. I think that does say something about the experiences that people have had in that environment, nothing more, nothing less.

With respect to the amendment from the Senator from Nebraska, this again is an issue that goes directly to the quality of the environment in which people who have stepped forward and served are being offered in the U.S. military today. People who step forward to serve do so because they love their country. They do so because they have family traditions. They do so in many cases because they like to soldier. But they do so looking to us, the national leadership, to place their service in this right context and to address that service with a period of stewardship.

I was stunned earlier this year when the policy was announced that those in the Army were going to go to 15-month deployments with only a 12-month dwell time back here after these deployments. This is the Active-Duty people. The normal rotation is 2 for 1 historically. If you are gone for a year, you are supposed to have 2 years back. Now we are down to less than 1 to 1.

I called the Chief of the Staff of the Army. I asked him about it. I said: How do you do this? He just came back from Iraq. How do you do this to your own people?

His comment to me: We have to feed the strategy. We don't articulate the strategy.

I had to empathize with the situation he was in. That is one of the reasons I developed the motivation to try and help the situation by addressing it in the Congress. Senator Hagel has very clearly laid out the facts, the situation we face; that our troops, in many ways, have reached the tipping point, and the final tipping point came when we went below this 1-to-1 ratio, which is an absolute minimal floor.

The optimal ratio, as I said on the active side, is 2 to 1. We have a failed manpower policy which has placed the well-being and the availability of our troops in jeopardy. It is time for us to get to the place, after 4 years as an occupying force in Iraq, where the condition and the availability of our troops should drive our operational policies and not the other way around.

We are seeing the canary in the coal mine with respect to our military people. They have been giving more and more as these policies, those experimental policies, have gone forward. We are seeing a failing retention of experienced middle-grade officers and noncommissioned officers. We are seeing an increasing attrition rate against Army company-grade officers, the most

graphic example of that being the West Point classes of 2000 and 2001. These are the two most recent classes that have finished their 5-year obligation.

As of the end of last year, 54 percent of the class of 2000 had left the Army. As of the end of last year, 46 percent of the class of 2001 had already left the Army. This is well above, well above by multiples, attrition rates in the previous Iraq environment. The Marines have also seen an upward trend from the loss of critical midgrade noncommissioned officers.

As Senator Hagel pointed out, we are seeing difficulties in recruitment. With respect to the National Guard in Virginia, we have seen, since 2001, nearly 6,000 soldiers of the Virginia National Guard, and more than 2,000 members of the Air Guard, entering Federal service in support of these different operations.

We can be justly proud that all of these people have stepped forward to serve. At the same time we need to put a balance into how they are being used. As I mentioned a minute ago, that balance will be found in shaping our operational policies toward the availability of our troops. There is no strategy that should be driving the use of our troops in the way they are being used. For that reason, I support the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to take 5 minutes and address some of the issues raised on the other side and speak briefly about the Graham set-aside.

First, Senator Kyl from Arizona read a communication from the administration expressing its disagreement with the approach Senator Hagel's amendment is taking. I would like to say, quite obviously, that one would expect the administration to object to rational acts that might be placing restraints--even proper restraints--on Executive authority.

A number of constitutional issues have been raised. There are no constitutional issues in this amendment--any more than they were in the amendment I offered earlier. This is a proper exercise of authority under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. In fact, to respond to what Senator Graham said, there have been Presidents who have allowed this congressional authority to take place. The most graphic example was President Truman during the Korean war, when American troops were being sent overseas without proper training, and the Congress passed a requirement that no troops could be sent overseas unless they had been trained for 120 days. That was the Congress taking measures to protect the well-being of troops being sent into

harm's way. We are doing essentially the same thing.

There was a comment about the difficulty that might be had in the military with respect to individual troop rotations versus unit-group rotations. This is simply not an issue. It has never been an issue. Every troop returning from a combat zone or in the military has in their record book the date they came back. There are a lot of individuals who have returned from deployments overseas who were being put in the units that were getting ready to deploy. That concept is called backfill. So you can have an individual who has only been back for a few months being put into a unit that arguably has been back for a year. That is not taking care of the individual.

There was a comment by Senator Graham about the Hagel amendment creating down-range constitutional issues--issues that might affect us in other wars. This is simply not true. If you read the amendment, it is limited to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Finally, there have been comments about the attitude of the U.S. military. I think that poll after poll demonstrates that the attitudes of our people in military uniform are very directly a mirror of the attitudes of the people in the country at large. There is not that much of a distinction at all.

With respect to this amendment that has been offered, this side by side, clearly, it is being offered as cover for people who are going to vote against the Hagel amendment and who voted against the amendment I proposed. I urge my colleagues not to vote for it.

First of all, it is a sense of the Senate. It has no legal authority whatsoever. Second, the goals that are in this amendment are no different than current policy. So there is no sense in anyone who wants to attempt to help the people who are being sent into harm's way again and again with some reasonable timelines to vote for this. It is simply a statement of existing policy. If you agree with existing policy and you want to vote for a sense of the Senate, you may want to vote for this. I urge my colleagues not to.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure. It is a cover measure. It is a sense of Congress. It has no legal impact. This is a cover amendment because of earlier votes. It states as a goal, a goal that members of the regular components should be deployed for no more than 15 months. The stated goal of the Department of Defense is 12 months. This is not something people should be voting for.

I yield the floor.

With the persuasion of my friend from Arizona, I expect to be 20 to 25 minutes. I am glad to do it at any time. I would like to speak on the amendment that has been offered. I understand that generally the authors of the amendment are usually recognized first. I am prepared to wait my turn. I would like to talk for 20, 25 minutes after that.

Mr. President, as the Senate resumes debate on Iraq, our heartfelt support and appreciation go to our troops in harm's way. All Americans support our troops. They have fought bravely and continue to do so under extraordinary circumstances. They have answered the call to service. Many are on their third or fourth tour of duty in Iraq, separated from their families and loved ones for years. They have borne a great burden, and we owe them an extraordinary debt of gratitude.

History will write, however, that the President has repeatedly failed them by failing to have a policy worthy of their sacrifice. The President failed our troops from the outset by sending them into this misguided war without a plan to win the peace and by refusing to send sufficient troops to keep the peace.

Who can forget the words of GEN Eric Shinseki, who warned that America would need several hundred thousand troops to secure Baghdad? Who can forget the way the administration shunted him aside, ignored his advice, and allowed the looting and violence to spiral out of control? The administration's insistence that a small rapid force could achieve regional change and maintain a stable Iraq was utterly wrong, and chaos took the place of peace.

The President also failed our troops by repeatedly sending them into battle without proper equipment. Secretary Rumsfeld's callous comments that ``stuff happens'' and his mindless assertion that you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time still ring loud and clear in this Chamber, a constant reminder of the failure of leadership at the highest levels of the Pentagon.

The President failed our troops by relying for too long on a military solution to politically inspired violence and failing to engage in sustained regional diplomacy. We have been behind the curve every step of the way rather than leading, reaching out, and working to find solutions with Iraq's neighbors.

The President has also failed our returning troops home. Who can forget the horror we felt over the reports of our injured soldiers being housed in mold-infested rooms at Walter Reed Hospital? The services and medical care our troops need and deserve have fallen far short of meeting our responsibility.

We have given this President every opportunity. He has failed our troops by clinging to an unworkable policy that delivers less and less for our military and our mission in Iraq and stands no chance of succeeding now, in September, or ever.

The best way to honor our troops is to bring America's involvement in this misguided war to an end, not to pour more and more American lives into the endless black hole of our failed policy in Iraq.

The American people know this war is wrong. Voting against it was the proudest vote of my entire career in the Senate. It is wrong to abdicate our responsibility by allowing this failed war to drag on and on and allowing casualties to mount higher and higher. We don't need to wait until September to know that the surge will prove to be no better than the surges and failed strategies that preceded it.

President Bush keeps trying to buy more time for his failed policy by promising yet again that hope and change is around the corner. But after more than 4 years of such smoke and mirrors, Congress and the American people have lost faith in the President's competence in managing the war.

The American people have heard these new pleas before from the President. The death of Saddam's sons was supposed to have quelled the violence. It didn't. Capturing Saddam and bringing him to justice was supposed to stop the violence. It didn't. Three elections and a new Iraqi Constitution were supposed to have brought stability. They didn't. At every critical step, the administration has promised calm, but there is no calm. Our soldiers have constantly been faced with an increasingly violent and lethal insurgency.

The promise of success around the corner through the surge is no different. Initially, the administration told the American people the surge would add 21,000 troops to Iraq, but they didn't reveal the fact that there would be a wave after the surge, and we ended up sending nearly 30,000 troops.

In January, Secretary Gates said:

It's viewed as a temporary surge.

In February, Secretary Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee:

I think General Petraeus believes that we will have a

pretty good idea whether this surge and whether this strategy

is working, probably by early summer.

In April, Secretary Gates told us more time would be needed. He said:

I think it's been General Petraeus' view all along that . .

. some time, at some point during the summer, mid to late

summer, perhaps, he has thought that he would be in a

position to evaluate whether the plan was working so far.

In May, President Bush said even more time would be necessary. He told us:

As General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end

of the summer before we can assess the impact of this

operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a

chance to work.

A week later, Secretary Gates said the administration would ``make their evaluation of the situation and the surge in September.''

Temporary surge, early summer, mid to late summer, at least the end of the summer, September--these are the administration's desperate efforts to hide its failure just a little longer. I have no doubt that in September the administration will ask for yet another chance, but there are no more chances. Time is up. It is wrong to ask the American people and our military to cling to the false hope that September will bring change. It is wrong to ask our troops to bear the brunt of a failed policy. It is past the time to acknowledge that the administration's policy has failed and adopt a new course now to begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq. The facts are clear.

President Bush argued that the surge would bring security, create an opportunity for political reconciliation, and enable reconstruction to make progress. When he announced the surge last January, the President said:

America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry

out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring

security to the people of Baghdad.

Yet, more than 6 months later, the violence continues unabated in Baghdad.

The Pentagon's own June report on Iraq, which covered the months of February through May, stated:

Violence against coalition and Iraqi security forces

remained consistent with previous levels.

Unidentified bodies continue to be found in Baghdad at an alarming rate. Press reports say that in April, 411 unidentified bodies were found. In May, 726 bodies were found. In the first 6 days of June alone, 167 bodies were found. Many showed signs of torture and execution. Some have been beheaded. U.S. casualties have also increased in Baghdad during the surge. Our troop losses in Baghdad this year

have more than doubled over the same period as last year. The number of Americans killed in Baghdad from January through June in 2006 was 96, but the number from January through June of 2007 was 250--2\1/2\ times higher.

The presence of additional U.S. troops in Baghdad has also resulted in the spread of violence outside the city. The Pentagon's June report confirmed this trend. It said:

Many insurgents and extremists have moved operations to

Diyala, Ninewa, and the outlying areas of Baghdad Province .

. .

American soldiers are bearing the brunt of the violence, and they understand this trend as well. From January through June of this year, we lost 86 troops in Diyala--more than four times the number of troops killed there in all of 2006.

Attacks against Iraqi civilians are spreading across the country as well. According to the Associated Press, nearly 1,900 Iraqis have been killed in suicide attacks in 2007 and more than 4,400 have been wounded.

Our troops continue to be attacked and killed at a higher rate than ever across Iraq. Every month in 2007, American casualties have been higher than the same month in 2006. In January of this year, 83 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 62 the same month a year ago. In February of this year, 80 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 55 in the same month a year ago. In March of this year, we lost 81 of our soldiers, compared to 31 in March a year ago. In April of this year, 104 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 76 in the same month a year ago. In May of this year, 126 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 69 in the same month a year ago. In June of this year, 100 of our soldiers were killed, compared to 61 in the same month a year ago.

We don't need to wait until September to conclude that the surge has led to greater violence, not less, and that the time has come to bring our troops home.

Political progress has been nonexistent. In announcing the surge in January, President Bush told the American people that it would facilitate reconciliation. He said:

Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in

peace--and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make

reconciliation possible.

In fact, it has not happened.

In December 2006, the Iraq Study Group outlined a list of commitments made by the Iraqi Government and stated that by the end of 2006 or early 2007, Iraqis would need to approve a provincial election law, set an election date, approve a petroleum law, approve a debaathification law, and approve a militia law. In fact, none of the dates have been met and none of the crucial Iraqi legislation so essential to reconciliation has been approved.

The Pentagon's report in June made this point bluntly. It said:

Key legislative or reconciliation actions--such as the

Hydrocarbon Law, de-Ba'athification reform, and Article 140

(Kirkuk)--were not completed during this reporting period.

The Pentagon's June report also addressed the problem more generally. It said:

Reconciliation remains a serious unfulfilled objective.

It said:

Mass-casualty attacks on Shi'a targets and the April 2, 2007 attack on the Council of Representatives have made the Shi'a wary of reconciliation.

It said:

There is also significant evidence of violence against

Sunni Arabs, sometimes involving government security forces,

that undermines reconciliation efforts.

It said:

Public perceptions of violence have adversely affected

reconciliation.

As long as the commitment of our troops continues to be open ended, there is unlikely to be progress on reconciliation. It won't be until the Iraqis know our troops will not fight their civil war indefinitely that they will begin to make the hard political choices necessary to achieve reconciliation.

Importantly, the surge has not even been able to deliver on the President's goal of enabling reconstruction to go forward and fulfill its promise of a better standard of living for the Iraqi people.

On the fundamental issue of providing basic services for the Iraqi people, the Pentagon report in June said:

The Iraqi government has made little progress.

Despite the billions and billions of dollars our Government has spent on reconstruction, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that Iraq is still plagued by power outages, inadequate oil production, and shortages of clean water and health care. Electricity levels in Baghdad are half of what they were before the invasion. At the Baghdad International Airport, almost $12 million was spent on electrical generators, but more than half the money invested has been wasted.

Problems with reconstruction are not limited to Baghdad. Of eight reconstruction projects that the United States had declared a success 6 months to a year earlier, the special inspector general found that seven of them were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, or apparent looting. Of the 142 primary health care clinics planned for Iraq, only 15 have been built, and of those 15, only 8 are open to the public. Mr. President, 800 schools have been built and thousands of teachers have been trained, but less than a third of the Iraqi students attend class.

No one in this administration can tell the American people in good faith and good conscience that we are making progress in Iraq. Bringing this war to an end will not destroy the administration's policy. The policy has already self-destructed. Nothing good will come of staying on the same perilous failed course.

Iraq is sliding deeper and deeper into civil war. Instead of solving the problem, the open-ended presence of our military is only making it worse.

The choice is clear: Do we continue to put our trust in those who have led us astray, or do we end this failed policy and begin a new course in Iraq?

Finally, the cost in precious American lives for this failed mission is reason enough to end this mistaken and misguided war. But the costs here at home hit us again this week when our Congressional Research Service raised the estimate of what we are spending in Iraq from $8 billion to $10 billion a month. With the passage of this latest Defense spending bill, we will have spent $450 billion on the war.

We know where this money comes from. It comes from America's families, and it means that urgent domestic priorities at home are going unmet because they are starved of funds.

We know we must deal with the soaring cost of health care and finding a way to cover the millions of Americans who have no health insurance at all. This festering crisis is a major worry for families across America, and we owe it to our people to address it.

Six million uninsured children in America should be enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program, but there is not enough money to do that. For the cost of 6 weeks in Iraq, we could cover every one of these children.

For less than the cost of 1 month in Iraq, we could double the budget for the Centers for Disease Control to keep American families safe from bioterrorism and other deadly epidemics.

For the cost of 2 weeks in Iraq, we could double the funding for the National Cancer Institute, which is vital to finding a cure for that deadly disease.

For the cost of 1 day in Iraq, we could double the ability of the Food and Drug Administration to protect Americans from unsafe foods by increasing inspections, upgrading facilities, and hiring more safety personnel. For less than the cost of a day in Iraq, we could allow a million uninsured Americans to be served by community health centers.

In education, the price of Iraq is also very high. Each year, 400,000--400,000--high school graduates do not go to 4-year colleges because they cannot afford it. For the cost of less than a week in Iraq, every one of those students--every one--could receive the assistance they need to go to college.

We know that early education programs, such as Head Start, make an enormous difference to a child's future. But Head Start now serves only half of the millions of children who are eligible for the program. For the cost of 3 weeks in Iraq, we could serve every eligible child and family in the Nation.

The administration has failed to fund the No Child Left Behind Act by $56

billion since its enactment in 2002. For the cost of less than 6 months in Iraq, we could make our public schools whole by providing all the funding they have been denied over the past 5 years. For the cost of only 49 days in Iraq, we could fully fund this important program for every public school in this country.

The war in Iraq is also denying urgently needed resources for the first responders and emergency personnel who are keeping us safe at home in all 50 States. For the cost of 1 month in Iraq we could provide 3 million portable radios to our first responders, enabling them to communicate during a natural disaster or terrorist attack. We could provide our heroic firefighters with 12 million additional units of breathing gear or 40,000 new firefighting vehicles.

The list goes on and on and on. Countless high-priority items at home must go underfunded or unfunded because the war in Iraq is draining vast amounts of resources. In the days ahead, the Senate will debate these all important issues. For the sake of our men and women in uniform, for the sake of our values and our ideals, we must adopt a new course and bring our troops home to the heroes welcome they have so clearly earned and get about the business of putting America back on track.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Hagel-Levin amendment, No. 2032, on troop deployment length, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment that Senator Levin and I offer this afternoon, joined by my distinguished colleagues, Senators Webb, Snowe, and Harry Reid, says the following: A unit of the Army, including the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, may not be deployed or continued or extended on deployment for more than 12 consecutive months, and a unit of the Marine Corps, including the Marine Corps Reserve, may not be deployed or continued or extended on deployment for more than 7 consecutive months.

We recognize that some flexibility is required, therefore this amendment includes an exemption for forces needed to maintain continuity of mission and situational awareness between rotations.

We all recognize we are in a war, and we understand that extraordinary circumstances will arise which may require an extended deployment. To that end, this amendment also provides the President of the United States with the authority to waive the provision in times of national emergency.

To be clear, this amendment complements but is different from the Webb-Hagel amendment that we voted on this morning which sought to ensure that our troops have a minimum time at home between deployments. The war in Iraq has pushed the U.S. Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops.

Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80 percent of its recruiting goal for June. This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with large cash bonus incentives. Over $1 billion in cash bonus incentives were offered and given last year.

Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Gates declared the intent of the Department of Defense to deploy soldiers for not more than 12 months, and marines for not more than 7 months at a time. But in April, Secretary Gates announced that all Army units would deploy for 15 months because there were not enough rested forces available for redeployment.

He said:

Without this action, we would have had to deploy 5 Army

active duty brigades sooner than the 12-month-at-home goal. I

believe it is fair to all soldiers that all share the burden

equally.

Let me give an example of an extended, out-of-control deployment that recently hit my home State of Nebraska. Last month, 250 members of the Nebraska Army National Guard from the First Squadron, 167th Cavalry, and First Squadron, 134th Long Range Surveillance Detachment, returned to Nebraska from an 18-month deployment to Iraq. Yes, not 12 months, not 15 months--18 months, 18 months in Iraq, away from their families, their children, and their jobs.

Let me remind you again, this is a National Guard unit. That doesn't even include the 4 months of pre- and postmobilization training stateside.

Yesterday's Miami Herald reported the story of an Army reservist--not a member, again, of the regular Army. This reservist had been ordered to report to Iraq for his fifth deployment since we had been there.

During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on June 27, retired GEN John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, testified that, in his words:

Active-duty companies preparing for deployment to Iraq

within the next 6 months at less than 50 percent strength,

are commanded by young, inexperienced lieutenants [--young

NCOs--] and these units are lacking the equipment they need

for training.

General Batiste's testimony before the House 2 weeks ago is not the first testimony to direct our attention to this reality, this fact. A June 24 article in the New York Times cited the concern of anonymous administration officials, Bush administration officials, who were quoted. ``The reality, the [Bush administration] officials said, ``is that starting around April [of next year] the military will simply run out of troops to maintain the current effort.''

The Bush administration officials continue in this New York Times story by saying, ``By then,'' April of next year, the President ``would either have to withdraw roughly one brigade a month or extend the tours of troops now in Iraq and shorten their time back home before redeployment.''

This is on top of the already established policy of 15 months for the Army, in some cases, as we know from my example of the Nebraska National Guard unit, 18 months.

On June 23, the Washington Post quoted former Army Chief of Staff General Gordon Sullivan when he said:

There isn't much more land power available for use in Iraq

or Afghanistan. We are now ``all in.''

Another U.S. military strategist was quoted in the same article as saying:

I do not believe we've ever had enough troops to do all the

tasks we should be doing in Iraq.

In February, General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to Congress that there is now, in his words--this is a quote--``significant risk that our military will not be able to respond to an emerging crisis in another part of the world.''

The Army continues to increase its reliance on men and women from the Navy and Air Force to fill Army vacancies in theater because we do not have enough soldiers. In April, at a hearing, the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health found that the military is putting already strained troops at greater risk of mental health problems because of repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Mental Health Advisory Team-IV assessment replaced in May found that soldiers who deployed longer than 6 months or had deployed multiple times were far more likely to screen positive for mental health issues and that deployment length was directly linked to morale problems in the Army.

I wish to also note two other recent statements about what is going on

within our force structure. This comes from an April edition of the Army Times.

The military is so short of equipment that it will take

years after the war in Iraq ends to bring it up to authorized

levels.

That was what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, told a House subcommittee.

Of course, I think if we review the front page of most newspapers in America this morning, we are once again reminded what is going on in Iraq. I have heard in some of the debate on this issue the arguments against these amendments, the amendment that Senator Webb and I and others offered this morning, as a number of my colleagues are offering this afternoon that shows this is unconscionable, that somehow we have never done this before.

Well, I think we have laid to rest, or I hope we have, the issue of the constitutionality of the Congress of the United States being part of setting war policy. I would remind those who have some confliction about this or misunderstanding, that they read article I of the Constitution. It is rather clear what the constitutional powers of the Congress of the United States are.

If it is not our responsibility to deal with these great issues of our time--and I might remind all of us once again it is the Congress of the United States the Founders of this Nation entrusted with the sacred responsibility of declaring war. The administration or a President does not have that constitutional authority. It goes beyond that.

But I would also say we have never had a war fought in this country by American troops that has been an all-volunteer Army, an all- volunteer Army and force structure. So in Vietnam, where some of us served, we did not have a manpower problem. We did not have a manpower problem because we had a draft.

Now, we can go back to a draft. But we have to face the reality of what we are doing to the finest military the world has ever known--the best led, best educated, best equipped, most disciplined, and most focused, most selfless force structure the world has ever known-- professional.

So when I hear: Well, we have never done this before, obviously Congress did get involved in Korea and all wars. But we have never fought two wars with an all-voluntary Army. So obviously we have limitations on force structure.

The answer is not to continue to push and force the force structure to the breaking point--which we are doing now. And every general will tell you the same thing and every senior NCO will tell you the same thing, that is what we are doing. We are destroying the finest force structure the world has ever known, which took us, incidentally, 30 years to build because of what we did to it after Vietnam.

In addition to that, we have been asking a very few individuals to bear all the burden and make all the sacrifices to sustain a war in Iraq that is now in its fifth year, longer than the entire duration of World War II. We have a mismatch with capability and manpower and mission. We have forces in 140 nations all over the world, but yet we have the smallest standing force since World War II.

Something is wrong here. What do we do? Well, we keep going back to the soldiers and the marines: Well, you can do another 3 months, can't you, or 4 months or 5 months? You can do two or three deployments, can't you? You are a volunteer. You are a professional.

It will not work. I think we are seeing very clear evidence of that.

Who does look out for the rifleman? Who cares about the man and the woman at the bottom who are always the ones who have to do the fighting and dying? This is not an abstraction. This not an abstraction to them. We need to address this. We need to address it clearly.

Well, for these reasons and others, I am hopeful that our colleagues will take a serious look at this serious amendment because I think it does address some of our issues, not all of our issues. It is not intended to address all of our issues.

But we are in a situation where things are not getting better, things are getting worse. If we expect these men and women whom we ask to make all the sacrifices for all of us, then we owe them at least some responsible policy, policy worthy of them and policy worthy of their sacrifice. That is what this amendment addresses.

I am grateful for my distinguished colleague and the dear friend, old friend, the junior Senator from Virginia's leadership; certainly the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and others who are cosponsors. I might note this is a bipartisan amendment.

I yield the floor.

How much time do we have?

And the other side?

Madam President, I wish to follow along with what my distinguished colleague from Virginia was addressing and that is the difference between the two amendments that are before the Senate. I will address the Graham resolution first. I think therein lies the most significant difference between the Graham amendment and the Hagel amendment.

The Graham amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The Hagel amendment is a piece of legislation that, if enacted, would have the force of law.

I wish to also address an issue that has developed some credibility in this debate in the last 2 days and that is that Congress has no role in this. I have heard some of my colleagues talk about micromanaging the war and micromanaging the Defense Department. We do have a Constitution. If you look at article I of the Constitution, section 8, I will read a sentence or two from that regarding the issue of what the role of the Congress is. Certainly, I think most everybody knows that only the Congress can declare war and raise money for our Armed Forces.

More to the point, it says Congress has the responsibility ``to make Rules for the Government and Regulations of the land and naval Forces.'' That would certainly include the Army and Marines. ``To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union . . . ; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia. . . .'' And it goes on.

I hope we can lay to rest this issue of somehow the Congress is mucking around in someone else's business. I don't believe so. I suppose we could dispense with congressional action and abolish the Congress, and some people would find that more effective and efficient. Until we change the Constitution, I doubt that is going to happen.

We do have a responsibility for our Armed Forces. As I said earlier, who does look out for the rifleman, for the men and women whom we ask to bear all the burden, make all the sacrifices, do the fighting, and do the dying? They tell me this is an abstraction, that we don't have any role here. Come on. A colleague said recently in this debate that the war is unpopular. Of course, it is. Why is it unpopular? Because Congress is mucking around in this? No, I think just the opposite. The war is unpopular because our policy is not working in Iraq. We are ruining our military over Iraq. Just as General Petraeus has said before our committee, there will be no military solution in Iraq.

I think most of us understand that only a political accommodation, only a political reconciliation is going to work Iraq toward some sense of stability, some sense of security. But yet we keep pushing the military out there, pushing the military out there, let them do it, let them do it, as we ruin our military.

Of course, the Congress has a very important and significant responsibility and role in this debate. I remind everyone what has happened to our military because of what we are doing.

One other point. What is more important in a free society? Is an abstract policy more important than our people, more important than our marines and our soldiers? They are our most precious and important resource.

Our amendment, this bipartisan amendment, gives the President waiver authority if the President believes it is in the national interest, it is a national emergency to change this policy. He has that authority. We don't micromanage. We don't tie his hands. If we listen to some of this debate, a 12-month deployment in Iraq is outrageously simple and easy and that somehow we are incurring on the President's power and the power of the Secretary of Defense to do that. That actually used to be the policy. I know it is outrageous to ask these people to only spend 12 months, that 15 months, 18 months is better, plus two, three, four tours is good. Yes, Congress has a role in this effort and this is what our amendment does. We include the Army National Guard. We include the Army Reserve. We include the Marines.

In the end, as we look at the full and complete dynamic picture of Iraq and what we are asking out of these men and women in uniform, then some semblance of common sense, some semblance of decency in how we treat our people is required.

Today our force capability does not match our mission. We are destroying our military. We are overburdening our military. We are burning out the circuits of our military, not because they are not good and professional and doing everything we tell them and ask of them. Of course, they are. But they can't do this alone. As General Petraeus has said, there will be no military solution to Iraq. Of course.

We need a policy worthy of these men and women whom we ask to fight and die for this country. Today this policy is not there. This is beginning to change that policy. I hope our colleagues will look seriously at this amendment and understand the very significant differences between the Hagel-Levin amendment versus the Graham-Kyl amendment. There are differences.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, the distinguished chairman is correct. He said that in open hearings before the Congress--I believe, in fact, before the Senator's committee.

Madam President, that is another reason the amendments are clearly different and the Hagel-Levin amendment is far better.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I was in college a number of years ago. One of the things we studied was George Orwell's ``1984,'' which is a classic. It is a classic because George Orwell points out a futuristic society as he sees it. One of the things that has become known as Orwellian thought is where someone says something and the opposite is true. That is what George Orwell's book was all about. What we have heard now from my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, is Orwellian. His words were: Democrats are slowing things down. I mean, if there were ever anything in the world that is Orwellian, referring back to the book ``1984,'' it is that Democrats are slowing things down.

As a result of the envy of Republicans for losing the elections last November, they have done everything they can to slow this body down so we would look bad. We have had to file cloture many times, 43 times. Never, ever in the past history of this country has that been done. I have been in the minority, and I have held leadership positions in the minority. For years past, people picked their fights on relatively few issues where cloture would have to be filed. Not with the Republicans-- on everything we have done. They are filibustering things they support now. So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, which is America, understand, we have heard Orwellian speak here this morning: Democrats are slowing things down.

Yesterday marked 6 months from the day that President Bush introduced his temporary troop escalation plan to the American people. Six months ago President Bush implicitly acknowledged the Iraq policy he had been pursuing for nearly 4 years had failed. He asked the American people to overlook those 4 years of failure and trust his new plan to place tens of thousands of additional American troops in the middle of an intractable civil war, and it would bring about success. Six months ago, nearly 4 years after taking us into a war based on deception and falsification, including there being no weapons of mass destruction, the President asked us for trust. Despite his failure to convince other countries to share the burden of war with us, forcing our own brave troops to shoulder the burden of war virtually alone, he asked us for trust.

After nearly 4 years of strategic blunders and tragic mismanagement that left our troops without either the equipment they needed or the strategy for success they deserved, he asked us for trust. At a time when more than 3,000 American lives have already been lost, tens of thousands more wounded, and Iraq in flames, President Bush asked us for more trust so he could put tens of thousands of additional American troops in harm's way. Since then, 6 months, 600 more dead Americans, and $60 billion, that is where we are. Sectarian violence has not diminished. Importantly, the Iraq Government has failed to take meaningful steps to begin taking responsibility for its own country's future. Still, President Bush and his Republican allies ask us for more patience, more trust, more time.

They say that after more than 4 years of incompetence and mismanagement, they finally think they are entitled to more trust. I don't think so. That is akin to a quarterback throwing three interceptions--one, two, three interceptions--comes to the coach and says: Coach, trust me. I am not going to change anything, but trust me. Leave me in the game.

There is no evidence that the escalation is working. They refer to Anbar Province, and there are some good things happening there, but everybody knows that the bubble is being squeezed and terrible things are happening in other places. They are no longer bombing police stations only and health clinics and markets. They are now destroying villages. Three days ago they set off a 5-ton bomb and blew up a town. The town is gone.

Conditions are deteriorating and more lives are being lost every day. The days of trust have long since passed. Some would rather wait until September before forcing the President to change course. If there were real signs of progress or real reason for hope, that might make sense. If the real costs being borne by our troops and their families were not so high, perhaps we could afford more patience and more trust. If we wait until September, more Americans will die, more Americans will be wounded; a third of the troops being wounded are wounded grievously; our treasure will be more depleted; and the Middle East will become ever more destabilized. Our efforts to focus on the real war on terror will be impeded.

What do we have in the Middle East now? We have a civil war raging in Lebanon. The Palestinians are fighting among themselves. There is civil war. We have ignored Israel. We have Iran thumbing their nose at us and a conflagration in Iraq.

If the real costs being borne by our troops and their families were not so high, we could afford more patience and more trust. But the costs are high. Waiting until September is not the answer. Holding out hope, blind hope, blind trust that progress will appear out of thin air for reasons no one is able to articulate is not the answer. This Department of Defense authorization bill and the amendments that will be offered to it are the next chance we have to chart a responsible new course

out of Iraq. The American people demand the new course. Democrats demand it. Republicans demand it. Independents demand it. They deserve it.

Our brave men and women in uniform also deserve it. They deserve more than speeches expressing disapproval or dismay with the current course. Our votes, not our voices, will determine whether we heed the call for a new course. Our votes, not our voices, will demonstrate whether we reject President Bush's failed policy. Our votes, not our voices, will prove whether our resolve is firm and whether we are prepared to lead.

We will work hard this week and next week to pass a Defense authorization bill that reflects a resolve to pursue a responsible and binding new policy. That is going to require Republican support. Already we are seeing some Republicans speak out against the President's Iraq policy. We hope that they and other Republicans will put their words into action by not just saying the right things but voting the right way. That can start today. We have an amendment before us that is critical for the strength of our military and the well-being of our troops. Regardless of where we stand on this ill-advised war, I would hope we stand as one in our commitment to keeping our military the strongest in the world. We should all agree we can't sustain that strength if our men and women in uniform are not being given the protection and care they need.

That is not a Democratic talking point or a Republican talking point. It is common sense. That is why I rise to support the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, and cosponsored by dozens of others. It is also why I am so surprised the Republican leadership has decided to block this amendment, and that is what they are doing. They are blocking the amendment, once again, to stand for obstruction and stand against progress. I fear it is a sign of what is to come from the minority party in the tough votes ahead.

In the Roll Call publication this morning, the Republican leader is quoted as saying there will be a 60-vote requirement on anything we do on this bill.

Senator Webb's readiness amendment begins the critical and long overdue process of rebuilding our badly overburdened military. Who better to offer this amendment than the top two cosponsors: Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. I say to these young people who are pages, you are seeing on the Senate floor a real American hero, a Marine captain at age 23, a Naval Academy graduate about whom books have been written for his heroism, two Bronze stars, a couple Purple Hearts, Silver Star, Navy Cross.

Chuck Hagel is the other cosponsor. One of the great stories I have heard in my life is a story of Chuck Hagel and his brother. You go to his office and there is a picture of Chuck Hagel and his brother in Vietnam, arm in arm, as soldiers. Chuck Hagel saved his brother's life in Vietnam.

These are the two cosponsors of this amendment. Do they know what it means to go to battle, do they know what it means to go to battle unprepared and unrested? Yes, they do.

Also, Senator Webb has another little niche I would like to talk about, and that is his son Jimmy is also a Marine who just got back from fighting in Iraq. The Marine Jim Webb knows the consequences of overburdening the military and knows that ours is stretched nearly to the breaking point. Senator Jim Webb knows the consequences of overburdening the military, and he knows that ours is stretched nearly to the breaking point. So does Chuck Hagel.

Here are a few signs--and there are many--of that burden: Among the Army's 44 active combat brigades, all but one has served at least one tour in Afghanistan. Thirty-one of them have had two or more tours. Among the National Guard and Reserves, more than 80 percent have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, with an average of 18 months per deployment.

This week, the Army announced that recruitment has fallen short by 15 percent for the second month in a row. The qualifications they are looking for have been so written down. Now you do not have to graduate from high school. Now you can have committed crimes before joining the military.

Last year, the active Army was 3,000 officers short, and that is only projected to increase. So much of the equipment and supplies meant for Guard and Reserve use here at home has been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and now only about 30 percent of essential equipment remains. That shortfall is costing an estimated $36 billion--just one of many hidden costs of this war.

We have all heard of the heavy personal costs this overburdening of the military is causing: higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. Eighty percent of the married men and women coming home from Iraq are divorcing.

Our troops are not machines. They are human beings. They are parents missing Little League games, spouses missing anniversaries, children of mothers and fathers who wait and worry for their safety. These honorable men and women wearing our uniform need and deserve time off from the trauma of war. War is trauma, and no war has been more traumatic than this war, where there is a faceless enemy blowing up streets.

Could we have order, Mr. President.

These gallant men and women need time off from the trauma of war, as I said, to see their families and reconnect to their normal lives.

The Webb amendment is simple. It states if a member of the active military is deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, they are entitled to the same length of time back home before they can be redeployed.

It also states that members of the Reserves may not be redeployed within 3 years of their original deployment, which will not only give them time to recover from deployment, but will restore our Reserve forces to respond to emergencies here at home.

Mr. President, I am going to use my leader time right now.

Anyone who watched the tornadoes in Kansas and other States' emergencies knows how crucial a well-maintained and supported Reserve force is to our domestic safety. Some have tried to confuse this issue by calling it an infringement of Presidential authority. This is not true. It is false.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to ``make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.'' That is in our Constitution. And this amendment provides ample Presidential waivers in the case of an emergency that threatens our national security.

The Webb amendment sets a standard and binding policy, but it does not tie the President's and Congress's hands to respond to an emergency.

If we are committed to building a military that is fully equipped and prepared to address the challenges we face throughout the world--and I know we are--then we must support this amendment.

If we are committed to repaying in some small measure the sacrifices our brave troops are making every day--and I know we are--then we must support this amendment.

I am discouraged that the Republican leadership chose to block this troop readiness amendment. If Republicans oppose troop readiness, they are entitled to vote against it. If Republicans do not believe our courageous men and women in uniform deserve more rest, including mental health downtime, they can vote ``no'' on this amendment. If they do not agree that constant redeployments and recruiting shortages are straining our Armed Forces, they can vote ``no'' on this amendment.

But to block this amendment--to not even give it an up-or-down vote-- shows that some of my Republican colleagues are protecting their President rather than protecting our troops. But just because some in the minority party are choosing obstruction does not mean all Republicans must follow in lockstep.

I think it should alarm everybody to read the New York Times newspaper today. On the front page of the newspaper, it talks about what this administration does to people who they appoint to high- ranking positions. This one was a Surgeon General of the United States. To show how this administration is directing its employees

to act--and I am afraid leaking over into the legislative branch of Government--listen to some of the things the Surgeon General was directed to do.

Dr. Carmona said the administration ``would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues.''

``Dr. Carmona said he was ordered''--now, listen to this one--``he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches.'' Any time he gave a speech, he had to mention President Bush's name three times or he could not give the speech.

. . . administration officials even discouraged him from

attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that

charitable organization's long-time ties to a ``prominent

family''. . . .

Now, we know that President Kennedy's sister got this started many years ago. He could not even attend the event.

``I was specifically told by a senior person, `Why would

you want to help those people?' ''. . . .

We are Senators. We have the ability, by virtue of our constitutional duties, to have a say in what goes on in this country. We are separate and equal branches of Government. My Republican colleagues must speak out against what the administration is directing this Congress to do. We need to stop protecting the President and start protecting our troops. That is what this amendment is all about. And to think that this administration is getting down into the weeds of things by saying how many times you have to mention his name in a speech speaks volumes of what is going on here in the Senate.

I urge all my colleagues who believe we need a new course to support this amendment, to vote for cloture. It is a crucial first step on the path toward a responsible end to this war.

cloture motion

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I know there is an order that recognizes the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes, both Senators from Colorado for 10 minutes each, and following that the Senator from Colorado will be recognized for up to 60 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that my two friends allow me to speak after they have done their first 10 minutes; that is, 20 minutes, that I be allowed to speak for a few minutes before Senator Salazar begins his 60 minutes.

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

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

Mr. President, let me first respond to the question earlier in the day of my good friend, the majority whip, about whether votes at the 60-vote level are somehow a new addition to debates of Defense authorization bills. Of course, the answer is emphatically no. The question is, frankly, almost laughable. A quick review of the Congressional Record shows, contrary to Senator Durbin's assertion, the Republican majority agreed to a 60-vote threshold on the Kennedy amendment during last year's Defense authorization debate.

Indeed, the Kennedy amendment was part of a UC agreement that set up side-by-side votes on the Enzi and Kennedy amendments. Both, of course, were given 60-vote thresholds, the same exact format that we offered on the Webb and Graham amendments yesterday.

Senator Durbin said there was never a 60-vote threshold. He was wrong. What Republicans are asking for is not unprecedented. It is not even uncommon. It is there for the distinguished majority whip to review online. But I certainly appreciate him asking the question.

We are just a couple of days into this debate. But a familiar and troubling pattern is already beginning to emerge. We could have voted on the Webb amendment yesterday. The Republicans were willing to move forward with votes on the side-by-side amendments. We said so at the time. Yet the Democratic majority insisted on a cloture filing instead that had no other effect than to simply slow things down. We are about to have that same vote with the same threshold and the same result that we could have had yesterday, all for no apparent reason.

Two days into this debate, we are already heading down the same fruitless road we went down with the emergency supplemental bill when the Democratic majority delayed the delivery of funds for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than 3 months.

The bill we finally sent to the President's desk was guaranteed to draw a veto, so the Democratic majority delayed it some more. In the end, they gave the President the bill he asked for. They wasted 3 months of the Senate's time fussing and fighting over the original request and then gave him what he wanted in the first place. It was a total and complete waste of time.

Now, here we go again. Two days into this debate, we are already wasting time on an amendment we know the President will veto. The Webb amendment contains many good things that Republicans strongly support. But it also limits the President's authority as Commander in Chief, and combined with other objectionable provisions in this bill will provoke, of course, a veto.

The President vetoed the emergency supplemental because it carried restrictions on his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. He will do it on this bill too. We know that for a fact. No one here disagrees with the idea that our forces should be rested, trained, and well-equipped. Republicans showed yesterday that we are committed to giving our soldiers and marines everything they need. That is why the underlying bill begins the expansion of the Army and Marine Corps. That is why Republicans offered a side-by-side amendment yesterday that would have given our men and women in the field all of these things without language that would draw a Presidential veto.

If the Democratic majority would have allowed us a vote on the Graham amendment, we could have stood here today and told the troops that rest, training, and equipment are on the way. But, instead, we are going to dangle all of these things in front of them knowing they won't be delivered. The Democratic majority is trying to force us to make a false choice between these two options, to pit the troops against their Commander in Chief. This is not just foolish, it is wrong. By putting limits on the President's authority to control forces in the field, the Webb amendment also amounts to a back-door effort to hamstring the Petraeus plan. It is the first vote on a strategy that has not been fully manned for just about a month. Every Senator in this Chamber knows we will get a progress report on General Petraeus's strategy in September, 2 months from now. We should wait for that assessment before rushing to judgment.

A Democratic-led Senate sent General Petraeus to Iraq, confirmed his nomination unanimously. He has a plan. He is executing it. We need to let him do his work. Let me say again, the Webb amendment contains a policy objective that Republicans enthusiastically share. What we do not share is the belief that the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief should be eroded by politicians in Washington in a time of war as this debate proceeds.

We will debate a number of amendments that seek to limit the President's authority and dictate operational plans for the war in Iraq. I expect that at least some of them will seek to order an immediate withdrawal of our combat forces. These amendments would provide a direct way to end our involvement in Iraq, and the Senate will consider them in due course. But the Webb amendment is

different. It would curtail the deployment of reinforcements to Iraq, denying our military commanders the ability to sustain current force levels in Iraq, especially in Anbar Province, where most agree there has been considerable evidence of success. The Defense Department establishes dwell times through policies that have been developed over time by our commanders and leaders. Those leaders in turn respond to the requests of commanders in the field. The waiver contained in the Webb amendment sets an unreasonably high bar.

Republicans, meanwhile, will insist on amendments that protect the Nation's ability to defeat terrorists and wage war against al-Qaida. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote against the Webb amendment as it seeks to limit the President's authority as Commander in Chief and will deny our field commanders operational forces. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Before yielding the floor, I wish to go back a minute to the 60-vote threshold issue with which I began my remarks. The suggestion has been made from the other side that somehow it is unusual to have a 60-vote threshold. Let's take a look at some of the votes we have had on Iraq proposals this very year. We agreed to a 60-vote threshold on the Gregg and Murray amendments as side by sides which answered the all-important question of whether to fund the troops. We have had 60-vote thresholds on vote No. 43, the Biden resolution; vote No. 44, the Levin resolution; vote No. 51, the Reid resolution; vote No. 74, the Reid resolution; vote No. 117, the supplemental funding bill; vote No. 167, the Feingold amendment; vote No. 168, the Warner amendment; vote No. 169, the Cochran amendment; and vote No. 171, the Reid amendment. On all of these controversial Iraq proposals, we didn't have a simple majority threshold but a 60-vote threshold. So the notion that is being spun on the other side that this is somehow an unusual event is absurd on its face. All you have to do is look at the record this year and, not to mention, be reasonably alert to the way the Senate has operated. For most of the time since I have been here, controversial measures, we know, require 60 votes. Let me explain the reason for that.

Any one of the hundred Senators can object to a time agreement that would allow a matter to be dealt with, with under 60 votes. That is an option frequently exercised in this body on both sides of the aisle. What we have done, as a practical matter in dealing with the Iraq debates this year, is recognize the obvious, which is that it would be difficult on these controversial measures for the leaders of either party to produce an up-or-down vote. Therefore, we have simply agreed to have a 60-vote vote, and it considerably expedites consideration of measures and prevents having to file cloture, running the risk that if cloture is invoked, somebody will require that we use 30 more hours in addition to that. In short, there is a sensible way to move forward on this bill. I hope we will adopt it later this afternoon and move on through with this very important measure for the defense of our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

So the two votes would occur, I ask the chair, at what time?

Mr. President, I was just inquiring when we expect the two votes, and the chair said 6:20.

Madam President, there is an old saying that goes: If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. For years I have led the fight in Congress to push the Department of Defense to safely and efficiently dispose of the deadly chemical

weapons stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Madison County, KY, and in other facilities across the country. For years, forces burrowed deep within the middle layers of the DOD bureaucracy have dragged their feet on this issue and refused to comply with Congress's directions. As a result, for years the people of Madison County have had to live with 523 tons--523 tons--of chemical weapons right in their midst, including VX nerve agent, one of the deadliest nerve agents ever created. Just 10 milligrams of VX is enough to kill a human being, and they have over 100 tons of it stored just down the road from a schoolhouse.

My colleagues and I have had enough, and we have concluded that if you want to do something right, you have to do it yourself. Therefore, I rise today to speak about an amendment I filed on Tuesday, amendment No. 2061, that will set a deadline into law for DOD to complete work on the disposal of the chemical weapons at the Blue Grass Army Depot and other facilities.

The deadline in this amendment will hold DOD to complete work on the disposal within 10 years; that is, no later than 2017. Thanks to years of delay and mismanagement, last year the Defense Department formally notified Congress it could not make the deadline set in the Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC, and that deadline, of course, is 2012.

The United States has committed itself to that document and therefore will be in violation of its treaty obligations. But now DOD's latest projections would put off the completion of the disposal process at the Blue Grass Army Depot until 2023. That is 11 full years past the original deadline, and that is simply unacceptable.

I have documents from DOD that confirm that with sufficient funds, the entire U.S. chemical weapons stockpile could be eliminated by 2017, the deadline set by this amendment about which I am speaking, or maybe even sooner. If that goal can be met, then it certainly should be met.

Compounding the longstanding mismanagement within DOD on this issue is that the Department has consistently failed to request sufficient funds for disposal efforts. For years Congress has had to do the heavy lifting by increasing funds and making clear our commitment that these weapons be disposed of safely and with dispatch. A formal deadline in law, along with a regular reporting requirement, should finally push DOD to request sufficient funds in the future. That seems to be the only way to get DOD to ask for the funds it needs to get the job done.

Authorizers and appropriators of both parties, and in both Houses, have repeatedly expressed frustration at DOD's sluggish response to Congress's will. For years, the Department has flouted Congress and continued business as usual. That simply has got to stop. Passing this amendment will send a strong signal to the Department of Defense that Congress has had enough of their pigheaded stubbornness on this issue, and we are not going to take it anymore.

To prove we mean business, this amendment will also provide an additional $49.3 million for chemical demilitarization activities at Blue Grass Army Depot and a comparable facility at Pueblo Depot in Colorado. My colleagues from Colorado will be speaking to that momentarily. Those funds are fully offset in the bill. The money will be targeted to the two depots that have the farthest to go to dispose of their stockpiles, so this extra funding will help speed up the elimination of chemical weapons.

Delaying the disposal of chemical weapons in Kentucky and Colorado until the 2020s would cost the taxpayers an additional $3.3 billion. Appropriating $49.3 million and setting a firm deadline in law now will save us that $3.3 billion later.

The Department has over 16,000 tons of lethal chemical agents stored in military depots across our country. VX nerve gas stolen by a terrorist from the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky could have grave consequences for Americans living as far as away as Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, or even here in Washington, DC.

The risk from these weapons is particularly acute for those who live near these storage facilities. Every risk assessment ever done has concluded that the longer these deadly weapons lie fallow, the more unstable and the more dangerous they become.

The threat of terrorism posed by our failure to dispose of these weapons is not limited to the storage of such materials in the United States. With America soon to be in breach of its treaty obligations under CWC, it will be all the more difficult for us to prod Russia to dispose of its outstanding chemical weapons. Storage of Russia's chemical weapons is much less secure than our own. The longer these weapons continue to sit in storage throughout Russia, the greater the opportunity for them to fall into terrorist hands. So at its core, continued foot-dragging poses a national security and homeland security risk to our country.

Finally, I note, as I said earlier, this is a bipartisan amendment. My good friend from Colorado, Senator Salazar, joins me, obviously, as a cosponsor, as well as Senator Allard. This is something that Senator Bunning, my colleague from Kentucky, also joins as a cosponsor and feels strongly about as well.

A vote for this amendment will tell DOD that Congress is fed up, fed up, with its intransigence on this issue. A vote for this amendment is a vote to save the taxpayers $3.3 billion. A vote for this amendment is a vote to dispose of deadly nerve agents that are just down the street from our homes, our churches, and our schools.

Most importantly, a vote for this amendment is a vote to make the American people safer and more secure. When this Congress directs DOD to safely and efficiently dispose of these deadly weapons, and when we authorize and appropriate a sufficient amount of money so they can get the job done, that is exactly what we expect them to do. It is a shame we have to place a legally binding deadline on the Department to get them to do this. But if we want this job to be done right, we are going to have to step in and set a deadline ourselves.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when it is subsequently offered.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to reassert my support for a change of course in Iraq and to briefly address some of the

amendments we are going to consider in the next few weeks concerning Iraq policy.

Two weeks ago, I had the honor of experiencing firsthand one of the more memorable events to occur in this Senate in the 6 months since I have been here. It was late on a Monday evening, and just as you are right now, Mr. President, I was sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair. It was around 10 o'clock at night, and I was thinking that maybe the day's events had been about concluded. Well, OK, I was thinking maybe I was the only Senator left at the Capitol and that it was time to go home. Then onto the floor came Senator Lugar.

In my short time in the Senate, I have come to know the senior Senator from Indiana as a man with the deepest respect both from and for his colleagues, a leader who always puts principle above politics, and a Senator who earned the right to speak and be heard long before I came to Washington.

For the next 15 minutes, I listened to Senator Lugar--standing right over there--as he delivered a poignant, pragmatic assessment of our Nation's position in Iraq. Rising far above the partisan crossfire that too often fills this Chamber, the Senator from Indiana urged his fellow Members of Congress and members of the administration to suspend their party differences and to come together.

As he said that night:

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the

current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be

achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy

will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of

protecting our vital interests over the long term.

I hope all of my colleagues will recognize that our current strategy in Iraq is not working, that a new strategy based on the drawing down of U.S. forces is necessary, and that this strategy must be implemented now.

After 4 years, over 3,600 American soldiers have been killed; over 25,000 have been wounded; and almost $450 billion has been spent. We cannot wait until next year or even next month to change strategy.

After 4 years, we cannot wait for the Iraqi Government to demonstrate progress before we begin bringing our soldiers home, when it has shown no indication of a commitment to compromise and reconciliation.

And after 4 years, we cannot ask our men and women in the field to continue to risk life and limb indefinitely in pursuit of a policy that is not working.

As Senator Lugar said that night:

A course change should happen now, while there is still

some possibility of constructing a sustainable bipartisan

strategy in Iraq.

Well, certainly, what we saw today on the floor of the Senate did not demonstrate that kind of bipartisan strategy. I personally thought it was obstructionism that we were not allowed to at least continue the debate and to vote on Senator Webb's amendment. I believe we have to have a change of course.

Our troops have done what we have asked them to do. They deposed an evil dictator. They guaranteed free elections in the country of Iraq. They gave the Iraqi people the opportunity to vote and to establish a new government.

We all know there can be no purely military solution in Iraq. This has been agreed on by so many military commanders, experts, and Members of this body on both sides of the aisle that it does not need to be argued anymore. And we all recognize true stability in Iraq will only come through political and economic compromises between Iraq's main ethnic groups, and only the Iraqis themselves can reach these compromises.

Given this, shouldn't our strategy be focused on transitioning to Iraqi authority now, not at some undefined time in the future?

We must push the Iraqi Government to assume the duties it was elected to perform and to lead the process of meaningful negotiation and dealmaking. Our open-ended commitment is impeding this process and inhibiting the will and the ability of the Iraqi people to stand up and take responsibility for their own country.

Nine months ago, the Iraq Study Group proposed a pragmatic change of course that focused on political and economic initiatives, intense regional and international diplomacy to tie all nations with an interest in Iraq together, and the beginning of a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Since the issuance of the Iraq Study Group report, some conditions on the ground have remained the same, and a number have gotten worse. In the last 3 months, more U.S. troops were killed than in any other 3- month period during the entire war.

I urge my colleagues to set aside differences, to forget about past disagreements or voting records, and to focus on what is best for our troops in the field going forward. We owe it to these brave men and women in the field to get this policy right.

I believe the best thing we can do--for our troops, for our national interest, and for the Iraqis themselves--is to begin bringing our troops home and to remove the bulk of the U.S. combat forces by the spring of next year. We would still maintain a presence capable of protecting U.S. personnel, training Iraqi forces, and conducting counterterrorism and other specific operations.

Keeping the 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq is undermining our ability to achieve our objectives there and in the region. We need to start bringing them home. As Senator Lugar said that night:

A diplomatic offensive is likely to be easier in the

context of a tactical drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq. A

drawdown would increase the chances of stimulating greater

economic and diplomatic assistance for Iraq from multi-

lateral organizations and European allies, who have sought to

limit their association with an unpopular war.

In March, I visited Baghdad and Fallujah and saw, firsthand, the bravery and commitment of our troops. Of the 22,000 troops involved in the surge, 3,000 of them are from my State of Minnesota. I met a number of these troops. Some of them just came up to me in cafeterias or on the street, and they were from Minnesota. I can tell you that they did not complain. They did not complain about their tour extensions. Some of them--in fact, nearly all of them--had been set to come home in January. They did not complain about that. They did not complain about their equipment. They did not complain about the heat. All they asked me was--first of all--what was the score of the State high school hockey tournament, and then they asked me if I would call their mom and dad, and if I would call their husband or wife when I got home to tell them they were OK.

My most lasting memory of that trip was standing on the tarmac at the Baghdad Airport, when nine Duluth firefighters called me over to stand with them. And they were there in front of their firetruck for one purpose, and that was to salute as six caskets, each draped with the American flag, were loaded on a plane.

They did not know who the brave soldiers were who died, but they knew when they were sent home, and when their families were there to meet them, their families' lives would never be the same. And they were there to show their respect.

Whenever I speak with the moms or dads or husbands or wives of soldiers who were killed, I always ask them how they are doing. When I asked this question of a mom recently from western Minnesota, she said: You know, people keep asking me that. They keep asking me how I am doing. And, you know, I really don't know what to say. She said: Do you have any ideas about what I should say? And I told her: Well, I can tell you what the other mothers have been saying. They have been saying that they wake up every morning, and they try so hard to hang together for their family, and then something happens--they see a picture or they remember something--and they are never the same for the rest of the day. And they have their good moments, but their lives will never be the same.

We owe it to these families to honor the sacrifices their sons and daughters have made and to begin bringing our troops in Iraq home so that other families do not experience similar anguish.

This is a different kind of war we are fighting. It has made demands on the National Guard that are unprecedented. At times, up to 40 percent of the troops fighting in Iraq have been members of the National Guard and Reserves. In many respects, this war has involved a different kind of soldier.

In Vietnam, the average age of an American soldier was 19 years old. In

Iraq and Afghanistan, the average age of Active-Duty soldiers is 27, and the average age of National Guard members over there is 33 years old.

Three-fourths of all soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have families of their own, and fully one-half of those who have been killed have left families behind.

Almost 22 percent of all Reserve and Guard members have had multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I have met some of these families. When I was up in Duluth, I met a brother and a sister--teenagers. Both of their parents had been in Iraq, and they were both going back again.

For 4 years, these citizen soldiers have gone above and beyond the call of duty and made extraordinary sacrifices. It is time to begin bringing them home.

We are finally starting to see some of our National Guard and Reserve members in Minnesota coming back, just as others across the country are taking their place. These men and women from Minnesota are completing one of the longest deployments of any U.S. military unit since the war began. They were originally scheduled to return home at the beginning of this year, only to find out weeks before they expected to ship back home that their tours had been extended as part of the President's surge strategy. Already a few hundred of these Guard members have been reunited with their loved ones, and by August the entire unit should be back in Minnesota, reconnecting with friends and family, beginning the process of transitioning to normal life. Having served and sacrificed for 16 months, these men and women have earned their rest and the right to live their lives in peace.

That is why I cosponsored and voted for the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia, Senator Webb, also cosponsored by Senator Hagel. This amendment, as my colleagues know, would require regular units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to remain at home at least as long as they were deployed and give Guard and Reserve members 3 years at home for every 1 year they are deployed.

The President's policies have placed unprecedented demands on our military in the 4 years of this war. Our forces are exhausted and overstressed. It is critical, both for morale and for operational safety, that units be given proper time to rest, recuperate, and retrain before redeploying. America's Armed Forces have a proud history and tradition that is unparalleled in the world, but when their ability to function properly is in danger, Congress must step in and address this situation.

I am disappointed that most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to block this responsible proposal rather than allowing a simple majority vote. This amendment would begin the process of repairing and rebuilding our military, while maintaining our Nation's ability to meet any threat to our Nation's security. We owe this to the members of the National Guard and Reserve and to their fellow soldiers across the country.

Since I have been in the Senate, I have joined many of my colleagues on countless occasions in asking when this war's supporters would publicly acknowledge the realities on the ground and finally allow a change of course that begins bringing our forces home. Each time we ask this question, we are told to be patient, that progress is just around the corner, and that it would be counterproductive to establish a timetable for withdrawal. After my trip to Iraq, I met with the President with three other Senators, and I talked to him about this. He said he supported the Iraq Study Group, but he didn't believe in the timetables. He didn't want the deadlines. Again, we were told it will be counterproductive to establish a timetable for withdrawal.

Now we have reached a point where the patience of many of even the most loyal supporters of this war--and I am someone who opposed this war from the beginning--but the patience of even the most loyal supporters of this war has been exhausted.

We have reached a point where Senators who have dedicated their lives to serving our national interests cannot stand silent as America's strength and standing in the world is continually undermined. We have reached a point where the necessary changes in our strategies in Iraq may finally be possible. I urge my colleagues to vote for these changes. We simply cannot wait any longer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Webb amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against the cloture motion. This amendment is about restricting the President and his military leaders' ability to prosecute a war that we have asked them to execute, and for which we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to carry out. It is an unwise and harmful effort to limit the ability of the President and his military leaders and handicap their use of personnel and resources available to them.

Senator Webb's amendment would preclude ``deployment'' of certain active and reserve forces based on the number of days they have spent at home. Keep in mind these restrictions would apply to the Nation's most experienced and capable troops during a time of war when we face an unpredictable and highly adaptive enemy.

Keep in mind that during World War II and other wars of this country, servicemembers participating in those wars deployed for 3 and 4 years with little or no break. With this in mind the current proposal by Senator Webb seems out of step with history and what it has taken to win the wars of this country. I can think of no way in which the Webb amendment will help our Nation succeed in Iraq.

This amendment ignores the fact that we are at war and that artificial conditions imposed by Congress on the use of troops are not helpful. Senator Webb is not alone in worrying about the effects of this war on the readiness of the Armed Forces, on the soldiers and marines and their loved ones, and on the ability of our all volunteer force to continue to perform under this demanding schedule of rotations. Senator Webb's amendment, however, is not a solution to any of these problems. Senator Webb stated that his amendment ``does not micromanage the military nor does it tie the hands of our operational commanders in theater.'' The Pentagon disagrees. The Pentagon has said that if the Webb amendment passes, operations and plans would need to be significantly altered. Units or individuals without sufficient ``dwell time'' would need a waiver to deploy based on threat. This waiver process adds time, cost, and uncertainty to deployment planning.

In emergency situations the waiver process could affect the war fight itself by delaying forces needed in theater. Units would need to be selected for deployment based on dwell criteria that may in fact cause significant disruption to needed reset, planned transformation or unit training schedules.

And from the Joint Staff: For fiscal year 2008, four Army brigade combat

teams are projected to incur ``dwell violations;'' gaps in manning would be seen in aviation, intelligence, engineer, medical and military police; gaps would be seen in high demand units, specifically EOD, security forces, forces supporting detainee operations, and mobility aircrews. For individual members: ``anticipate high operational impact due to breakdowns in unit cohesion and problems in filling individual shortfalls in tasked units.''

Public approval ratings for the President and for Congress may be at all time lows, but the admiration of the American people for our military only gets higher. Why? Well, one reason is they take their responsibilities seriously and they train, prepare, and plan to win. And we should let them win--not legislate a recipe for failure which the amendment clearly does.

The power of the Congress under article 1 of the Constitution to ``make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces'' is well understood, as is the President's authority under article 2 to command our military forces as Commander in Chief. This amendment, however, is an unprecedented wartime attempt to limit the authority of the President and the military leaders by declaring substantial numbers of troops and units ``unavailable.''

Putting aside all concerns about potential contingencies that might arise, this amendment is unworkable and will make the task of generating cohesive units for rotations impossible. Here is the Joint Staff's bottom line on the Webb amendment: If a 1:1 dwell policy is codified in law, eliminating the flexibility of the services to manage and mitigate exceptions to the dwell planning goals, future support to OIF/OEF may be severely impacted. Specifically, the requirement to provide 15 months of dwell for Army units scheduled to execute forthcoming planned 15 month deployments will result in future capability gaps in both OIF and OEF unless the force requirements are simultaneously reduced to a substantial degree. The same will apply to Marine Corps units.

I am also concerned by the provision in the amendment that would allow individual members to ``volunteer'' to forego their ``dwell time to deployment'' ratio and seek a waiver from the Chief of Staff, CNO or Commandant of the Marine Corps to allow them to--voluntarily--return to the combat zone. I don't think it could be more clear that this provision in the amendment would undermine unit cohesion and readiness by encouraging debate in the ranks about when to deploy next. It would pit one soldier against another, leaders against those led, and encourage the kind of ``cross leveling'' that has been called ``evil and corrosive'' by our Reserve and Guard leaders. This notion in the amendment would introduce a whole new meaning to the concept of an ``All Volunteer'' military force: volunteerism instead of duty. It would drive wedges between soldiers and between marines, and could only hurt discipline and undermine the effectiveness of troops in the field.

I would like to take a step back and talk more generally about our ongoing debate on Iraq and reflect on some of the dialogue that has transpired over the past few days and weeks, both in this body and elsewhere. I am very concerned that so many of my colleagues, and observers elsewhere, are declaring the President's change in strategy for Iraq--which he embarked on this past January--a failure when all the troops to implement that strategy have only been in Iraq for 3 weeks.

In my opinion, leaders--particularly in elected offices--should do what the word implies, and that is ``lead.'' It does not take a leader to follow opinion polls, which is what I am afraid that many of my colleagues are doing.

Our commanders and ambassador do not believe that the war is lost. Asked whether the U.S. could win in Iraq and leave behind a stable government, GEN David Petraeus said, ``If I didn't believe that I wouldn't be here.''

We have seen promising indicators since the President announced the new strategy in January. While al-Qaida and other extremists have conducted a counter-surge resulting in numerous horrific mass-casualty terrorist attacks, and while it is too early to declare the surge a success or failure, we have seen: A substantial drop in sectarian murders in Baghdad since January; arms caches found at more than three times the rate of a year ago; attacks in Anbar at a 2-year low; total car bombings and suicide attacks down in May and June; signs of normalcy in Baghdad, like professional soccer leagues, amusement parks, and vibrant markets; recruiting for Iraqi police forces drawing thousands of candidates; young Sunnis signing up for the army and police and more Shia rejecting militias.

Some believe that setting a timeline and pulling troops out of Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground would be a responsible end to the conflict and/or would put needed pressure on Iraq's government. The collective judgment of our intelligence community is that this would increase, not decrease, the violence and hinder national reconciliation. In fact, a rapid withdrawal would almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

Some have said that General Petraeus does not believe the U.S. military can make a difference in Iraq. While General Petraeus has indeed said the ultimate solution to Iraq's problems is a political one, he has consistently argued that such a solution can only come with the improvements in security he is trying to achieve.

I was last in Iraq in early May and learned several things during my trip that have convinced me that the President's plan deserves a chance to work and that a change in strategy now is the wrong course. For example: There has been a significant reduction of sectarian murders and assassinations in Baghdad; attacks in Ramadi have eased by 74 percent in the past 3 months; there have been 263 weapons cache discoveries in the past 3 months, a 192 percent increase; over the past 6 weeks, daily attacks in Ramadi have dropped from an average of 20-25 a day to less then 3 per day. Last year, only two tribal areas were viewed as cooperative with U.S. forces and 17 were uncooperative. Today, all 23 tribal areas in Ramadi are cooperating with U.S. forces to fight al-Qaida militants. There are no uncooperative tribes. Iraqis are now volunteering by the thousands to join local police and army forces. At the end of March, there were over 1,200 army recruits in just 2 days.

Also from my trip to Iraq I learned that there are still issues that we and the Iraqis need to work on and watch closely. There are several political issues the Iraqis need to address, including passing a hydrocarbon law, continuing reconciliation efforts, debaathification, and holding provincial elections. These are keys to political progress.

We need to work to emplace additional provisional reconstruction teams--PRTs--in Iraq to help with reconstruction.

However, the foundation for these political issues being resolved and for the Iraqi Government continuing to mature and take responsibility is improved security throughout the country. That is the approach the President has taken, that General Petraeus is executing, and that is showing signs of progress. We should not abandon it because we live in an impatient society that wants to see results before the President's strategy is even fully implemented. We should stick with the plan, give it a chance to work, and listen to our military and civilian leaders when they report back on the strategies progress in the coming months.

I ask my colleagues to vote against cloture.

I yield the floor.