A bill to safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 1 minute left on my time, and I thank the Chair; and I, of course, join the Republican leader in paying tribute to all the members of our Armed Forces, those who continue to serve, those who have completed their service, and particularly those whom we have lost and their families.

But the Senate still needs to address Iraq. The American people voted a year ago to end the war and we haven't followed through. We need to address this issue and to end this misguided war now, before more Americans are injured and killed.

The bridge fund passed yesterday by the House isn't good enough. The goal for redeployment doesn't cut it. We need a binding deadline, which means we need to pass the Feingold-Reid bill.

Despite recent reports of a downturn in violence in Iraq, violence remains at unacceptable levels. 2007 has already been declared the bloodiest year since the war in Iraq started, and that is with almost 2 months still to go. Those counts don't bring in the number of Iraqis killed. On a relatively quiet day earlier this week, with no reported coalition tragedies, at least 33 Iraqis were killed and an equal number wounded in violence around the country. We can't say violence is down when violence around the country remains so high, when so many Americans are being killed and when so many Iraqis are afraid to walk the streets.

The underlying reality is we are working with both sides of the Iraqi civil war and deepening our dependence on former insurgents and militia-infiltrated security forces.

Meanwhile, the situation in the North and South is precarious at best. Unrest in these areas threatens the security of our supply lines.

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate largely attributed the decline in violence--particularly in Baghdad--to population displacements. Baghdad is now predominantly Shi'ite. While the purpose of the surge was to foster reconciliation, the reality is that the number of Iraqis displaced by the conflict doubled since the start of the surge, adding to millions already pushed out of their homes from 2003 to 2006.

Meanwhile, we have put our troops outside the forward operating bases in more dangerous territory for the purpose of policing the Iraqi civil war. When they are out in those joint security stations, they have to spend half

their time watching their backs because our ``allies'' are former Sunni insurgents and Iraqi Security Forces, neither of whom can be trusted.

We continue to supposedly ``train'' Iraqi Security Forces despite the fact that we finished training over 300,000 of them over a year ago. Of course, we may well be simply contributing to the Iraqi civil war by ``training'' and arming forces that are infiltrated by militias. We can't even account for the guns we have given them.

The ``al Anbar'' strategy--signing cease fires I with insurgents who were attacking our guys not too long ago--does not have the support of the Iraqi government. It is a poor substitute for meaningful reconciliation, which supposedly the surge is going to foster. Now the administration is shifting the goal posts and talking about ``bottom- up'' reconciliation.

We have seen the levels of violence in Iraq shift before--this is nothing new. If my colleagues think the surge is working and violence is down--let's get out while the getting is good. Without meaningful reconciliation, the violence will spike up again, that's for sure. So let's not wait around for that to happen.

Many U.S. troops currently in Iraq are now in their second or third tours of duty. Approximately 95 percent of the Army National Guard's combat battalions and special operations units have been mobilized since 9/11.

Mr. President, 1.4 million Americans have served in Iraq, and over 400,000 have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 4,000 have been killed in Iraq and over 27,000 have been wounded.

The Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without seriously damaging the military. Young officers are leaving the service at an alarming rate.

Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam. Every active Army brigade currently not deployed is unprepared to perform its wartime mission.

More than two-thirds of active duty Army brigades are unready for missions because of manpower and equipment shortages--most of which can be attributed to Iraq.

There are insufficient Reserves to respond to additional conflicts or crises around the world, of which there are, of course, potentially many.

This failure to prioritize correctly has left vital missions unattended. Natural disaster response, U.S. border security, and international efforts to combat al Qaida are all suffering due to the strain on military forces caused by poor strategy and failed leadership in Iraq.

Thousands of our troops have returned home with invisible wounds; such as PTSD and TBI--traumatic brain injury, which will have a long- term impact on veterans and their families. These invisible wounds are not counted in the casualty numbers, but we will be struggling with them for a generation or more.

The cost of the War? America has been in Iraq longer than it was in World War II.

Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would cost less than $50 billion. The administration has now requested over $600 billion for the war.

If we don't change course in Iraq, the cost of the war is likely to balloon to $3.5 trillion.

If we keep a ``Korea-like presence'' in Iraq, as Secretary Gates has predicted, this means we will have 55,000 troops in Iraq by 2013--a level that remains constant until 2017. And while this drop would certainly be cheaper, it would still mean an additional $690 billion. CBO has estimated that, just paying the interest on the money we have borrowed to pay for the war to date, will cost another $415 billion.

We are currently spending nearly $9 billion a month in Iraq. In 3 months in Iraq, we spend nearly the same amount that we spend on foreign relations and aid worldwide in 1 year.

The fiscal year total spending of the war--$150 billion--is greater than the combination of spending on our national transportation infrastructure, health research, customs and border protection, higher education assistance, environmental protection, Head Start, and the CHIP program. Our national programs are being neglected because of this disastrous war and future generations will bear the brunt of our misguided policy.

The costs are only rising. We spent twice as much this year in Iraq as we did in 2004.

The President continues to mislead the country about al-Qaida and Iraq. Contrary to the President's assertions, Pakistan and Afghanistan, not Iraq, are the key theater in this global conflict. While the administration has focused on Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border.

The President also presents a false choice between fighting al-Qaida in Iraq and doing nothing. Every single redeployment proposal includes the option of targeted operations against al-Qaida within Iraq. The difference is that the President seems to think that 160,000 or 180,000 troops, sent to Iraq for an entirely different purpose, need to stay.

We cannot ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al- Qaida is and will continue to be a global terrorist organization with dangerous affiliates around the world. Contrary to what the administration has implied, al-Qaida is not abandoning its efforts to fight us globally so that it can fight us in Iraq. That is absurd.

We need a robust military presence and effective reconstruction program in Afghanistan. We need to build strong partnerships where AQ and its affiliates are operating--across North Africa, in Southeast Asia, and along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we need to address the root causes of the terrorist threat, not just rely on military power to get the job done.

For example, right now, Iran's strategic position continues to improve and the situation on the Turkish border is explosive. We are bogged down in Iraq and exposed to attack from all sides, and our ability to promote regional stability from a position of strength is undermined.

Maintaining a huge, open-ended presence is igniting tensions in the region, and playing into the hands of the Iranian regime. Iran is able to expand their influence while we take the hits, in terms of casualties and finances. Our open-ended presence in Iraq is a blessing for Iran because it provides them with a buffer and mitigates any potential conflict between those two countries. It also removes any incentive for Iran to engage in a constructive manner.

Maintaining a significant U.S. troop presence in Iraq is undermining our ability to deter Iran as it increases its influence in Iraq, becomes bolder in its nuclear aspirations, and continues to support Hezbollah.

The American people want us out of Iraq. The administration's policy is clearly untenable. The American people know that, which is why they voted the way they did in November. More than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of a phased withdrawal. They do not want to pass this problem off to another President, and another Congress. And they sure don't want another American servicemember to die, or lose a limb, while elected representatives put their own political comfort over the wishes of their constituents.

The Feingold-Reid amendment requires the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. At that point, funding for military operations in Iraq is terminated, with narrow exceptions for targeted operations against al-Qaida and its affiliates; providing security for U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure; and training Iraqis.

We have narrowed the training exception to prevent training of Iraqi Security Forces--ISF--who took part in sectarian violence or attacks against U.S. troops. The exception also prohibits U.S. troops training Iraqis from being embedded with or taking part in combat operations with the ISF. These changes are intended to address concerns about the performance of the ISF--which has been infiltrated by Shia militias and accused of attacks upon U.S. troops--and to make sure that ``training'' is not used as a loophole to allow substantial numbers of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for combat purposes.

The other two exceptions are appropriately narrow: the counterterrorism exception applies to operations against al-Qaida and affiliated international terrorist organizations, while force protection applies to protecting U.S.

Government personnel and infrastructure.

The time has come for the Senate to seriously engage on this issue. The costs and the tragedy of this war are plainly unacceptable and contrary to the will of the American people.

Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 1077

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that S. 1077 be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee, be placed on the calendar, and at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate may proceed to consideration of S. 1077 and it be considered under the following limitations: that the only amendment in order be a Feingold-Reid amendment which is the text of the amendment offered on the DOD authorization measure; that there be a total time limitation of 2 hours of debate on the bill and the amendment, with the time divided and controlled in the usual form, and upon the use of that time the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill, without further intervening action or debate.

I am, of course, disappointed Republicans have again blocked us from debating and voting on legislation to end the war in Iraq. S. 1077 is the bill I introduced with the majority leader, Harry Reid, and eight other Senators earlier this year to safely redeploy troops from Iraq. The substitute amendment is the amendment we offered to the Defense authorization bill in September. It is, in effect, just a tweaked version of S. 1077. The majority leader joins me in these efforts.

There is simply no good reason to block a vote on this important bill. I assure my colleagues I am not going to go away, and this issue will not go away either, much as they might prefer it. Until Congress brings a halt to the President's open-ended, misguided war in Iraq, we will have debates and votes on this issue again and again and again.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, here we go again. We have had an effort to take another vote on whether we should pull out of Iraq. Apparently, it is based on public opinion polls. Some think it would be popular, and certainly the moveon.org and Code Pink wing of the majority party would be very happy if we could have crammed down a measure to make a substantial change in our policy without even allowing an amendment. It is absolutely unacceptable on its face.

I object not only on behalf of myself and many of my colleagues but for the brave men and women from America who volunteered to go into harm's way for our security and to promote security in the world. Retreat and defeat may be politically popular with some, but this kind of poison pill does great injustice to what our American volunteers have done. From the people on the ground, when we first started considering these retreat-and-defeat measures, I heard a very heartfelt plea: We have made too many contributions and made too many sacrifices to see it all go for naught because of political maneuvering on Capitol Hill. That comes from people who have seen their comrades fall in battle.

This year alone, the Democrats have attempted at least nine times to force the President to change the military strategy and tactics in Iraq, on the misbegotten notion that somehow we, in this comfortable setting of Congress, can make better military, tactical, and strategic decisions than our commanders on the ground. I find that deplorable.

It used to be the tradition of this body, of America, that we supported our troops when they were going in harm's way. Now some are doing everything possible to undermine their efforts. Nine times they have tried to change the policy. After 77 of us voted to send troops into Iraq because we knew it was a dangerous place, we found out--by the Iraq Survey Group--that it was even more dangerous.

Make no mistake, while some in this body may not think Iraq is important, two people whose activities I try to follow fairly closely in intelligence, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, his No. 2 man, think Iraq should be the headquarters of their caliphate, the headquarters of their vicious terrorist empire that wants to subjugate the region and threaten the United States.

Now, however, there is a key difference from earlier because we are seeing dramatic improvements in the security situation in Iraq, in particular in Al Anbar Province, which a year ago was a deadly place, a deadly place into which American troops could only go under heavy fire.

My son and several thousand marines are coming home because they have succeeded. Yes, there is a strategy for drawing down our troops. The President has announced it. It is called ``return on success.'' We bring the troops back when they have succeeded in their mission.

In Iraq, in Al Anbar, I have heard from people who are imbedded with Iraqi security forces that times have changed. There now are Iraqi citizen groups, citizen watch groups, who look for IEDs, who will identify foreign terrorists--al-Qaida types--who come into the area, and who will point out factories designed to build explosive vehicles. They turn that over to the Iraqi police in the area, and they clean it up. I have heard from a guy on the ground who is responsible for maintaining stability and security from the terrorists that the marines were no longer needed. So they are coming back. This is being replicated in places throughout Iraq.

Have we finished? We have not finished the job. There are still other areas, but it means we are succeeding. Iraqis are going about their normal business. Unfortunately for our fighting men and women and the Iraqi people who put their trust in us to see this mission through, too rarely are their successes being reported. They are ignored, although the New York Times, on the back page, I think, this past weekend, pointed out that we had routed al-Qaida in Iraq. Surprise. That wasn't on the front page, did not make headlines, because it has indicated a major change. Have you heard much about the success of General Petraeus and the counterinsurgency strategy after he testified on Capitol Hill? If you are like most Americans, the answer is you have heard very little, because it has fundamentally changed. While the media has always been quick to report bombings and failures in Iraq, it is simply not providing all of the good news.

They have been remarkably successful in 2007 in reducing violence. Yes, with the surge, with the new strategy, there was violence. But, according to General Odierno, the operational commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, enemy attacks are now at their lowest level since January 2006 and continue to drop. There has been a 60-percent decrease in IED attacks.

The reduction in violence is partly as a result of the presence of additional American forces and their adoption of the sound counterinsurgency strategy--go in and clear an area, work with the Iraqi security forces, and help them build an economy, a neighborhood, a safe place. It is also because the leaders on the ground in Iraq, the Sunni sheiks, have said--they have seen what continued terrorist attacks do to their country, to their people. The most frequent victims are Iraqis, good Muslim Iraqis who are being killed by the terrorists. They want to cooperate with us, and they are building, from the ground up, a stable, reliable, peaceful control over the area with the Iraqi security forces. Yes, some of them fought against us in the past, but they are now on our side because we are on their side and we are helping them. And when they take over, we will move back.

Now, I am fully aware of and concerned about the lack of political reconciliation. But, again, from boots on the ground, I hear: How do you expect them to establish a perfect democracy when this country is still not secure? Our goal in Iraq must be to work with the Iraqis, the Iraqi security forces, and responsible leaders to establish relative peace and security in the area.

What would happen if we withdrew precipitously for a political goal? We learned in an open hearing of the Intelligence Committee in January that if we pull out before we have stabilized this area and left in place Iraqi security forces, there would be chaos, and three bad things would happen: No. 1, there would be greatly increased violence among Sunni and Shia; there would likely be intervention by other states coming into Iraq to protect their coreligionists, potentially a civil war spreading into a region-wide war in a vital security and energy part of the world; but most dangerous for United States, and this is something my colleagues who want to cut and run seem to refuse to acknowledge, is that al-Qaida would be able to establish a safe haven. Yes, they have been driven off to the hills, the mountainous regions somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they cannot mobilize and exercise their command and control. If they had a place for command and control, had access to the oil riches of Iraq to fund their deeds, we would be significantly at greater risk to weapons of mass destruction attacks by terrorist groups funded and supported by al-Qaida.

We need to be realistic in defining what reconciliation is. It is a long process. To this day, for example, not all outstanding political tensions have been reconciled in Northern Ireland, in Bosnia, or Kosovo. Yet the civil wars and the terrorist campaigns that once threatened to engulf those areas have ended, and competing factions are pursuing their agendas primarily by peaceful political means.

Our men and women in uniform are fighting in Iraq to bring violence under control, to destroy al-Qaida, to drive out destabilizing Iranian meddling, and to establish a relatively stable and secure structure in Iraq, and they are making progress to those goals.

Getting a perfect democracy--we thought we had a perfect Jeffersonian democracy; then we had to have a Lincolnian republic after the Civil War. We are continuing to see the democracy. While it is the best of all the other bad situations, it is not perfect and does not work in a clear upward path; it takes time. And now we are seeing the questions being worked out at the local level on revenue sharing, oil revenue sharing. But to push a retreat-and-defeat, a delay-and-deny battle for the funds for our troops on the ground is unthinkable. This unanimous consent agreement to which I objected would be the ultimate cut and run: declare defeat, and hope to be rewarded in 2008 at the polls--a very regrettable effort by our colleagues on the other side.

The 2008 Defense appropriations bill recently passed by Congress includes no funding for our current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terror. For 3 years prior to this, we included emergency funding for the regular Defense appropriations bill to cover the cost of military operations until a full supplemental could be adopted. We are now seeing, coming over from the House, a pittance of what is needed, encapsulated in all kinds of restrictions that tie the hands of the troops on the ground and put unreasonable restrictions on them that are likely to cause much greater danger to American personnel, military and civilian, over there. What we need to provide-- and I hope we will be able to put an alternative emergency funding bill on the floor--are funds for force protection initiatives, body armor, helmets, ballistic eye protection, even knee and elbow pads, flares, and armor. The 2008 Defense spending bill did include funding for MRAPs, but why did the Democrats insist on omitting other critical items?

Now that DOD will be forced to continue robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to fund operations, it has a tremendously negative impact, not only on the way we conduct the war but how the Department of Defense operates. Important equipment reset and other procurement programs have to be slowed down. It will impact the availability of equipment, including critical equipment for the National Guard needed to respond to domestic emergencies. Without this funding, the Pentagon is forced to divert money from their regular accounts to fund overseas operations, about $13 billion a month.

I have a letter that has just been sent by Gordon England. He has pointed out what this would mean to the Defense Department. It means, among other things, the Deputy Secretary of Defense said, they will have no choice but to deplete appropriations accounts, and it will result in a profoundly negative impact on the defense civilian working force, depot maintenance, base operations, and training activities, and within a few weeks they will be required by law to issue notices of termination to civilian employees.

In addition, a lack of any funding for the Iraqi security forces and the Afghanistan national security forces directly undermines the ability of the United States to continue training and equipping Iraqi and Afghanistan troops who are needed to take over. This makes absolutely no sense in a time of war. We deny the needed funding that will keep our troops--not only keep the troops in the field but support those who are working to assure that we can turn over the responsibility to them.

This is absolutely the wrong message to send to our deployed troops. We must provide emergency funding without political timetables to win votes at home but undermine our troops.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Deputy Secretary of Defense England to House Defense Subcommittee chairman John Murtha and an article in today's Washington Times called ``War Funds Under Attack.''

Mr. President, it is just over 4 years since our brave troops marched into Baghdad, bringing an end to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Four long years later, however, over 141,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and more are on the way, while that country continues its tragic descent into widespread violence and civil war. Four years later, the President continues to insist that he has no intention of bringing this war to an end--or even acknowledging when it might end. And, 4 years later, the American people are calling out in greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended military mission.

That is why, today, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I am introducing legislation that would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days, and that would require redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008, by ending funding for the war on that date. While I would personally prefer an even stronger approach, with a shorter time-frame, for ending the war, I am pleased to be working with the Majority Leader on this legislation. Senator Reid understands the terrible costs of this war, and he understands the solemn obligation we have in this body to bring it to a close. As he put it just a few days ago, ``It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain.'' I thank Senator Reid for his support and for agreeing to bring the bill up for a vote before Memorial Day. I am also pleased to have the cosponsorship of Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse and Kennedy.

There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war, which the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) called a ``self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' And even if there were a military solution, civil war is only one of the problems causing violence and instability in Iraq. Again, let me quote the NIE: ``the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on- Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.''

Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it

make any sense to ask our troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle of ``Shia-on-Shia violence'' or ``criminally motivated violence'' in Iraq.

It does, however, make sense to address the ongoing threat posed by al Qaeda. For that reason, the Feingold-Reid legislation would allow ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations'' to continue in Iraq after March 2008. The bill also has narrow exceptions for U.S. troops to train and equip Iraqis and provide security for other U.S. troops and civilian personnel, but neither of these exceptions authorizes U.S. troops to engage in combat operations.

The Feingold-Reid bill allows targeted operations to take out terrorists who pose a threat to the United States, but it recognizes that maintaining a huge U.S. troop presence in Iraq doesn't help--in fact, it hurts--our global anti-terrorism efforts. By redeploying the vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq, this legislation will allow us to re-focus on the broader fight against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a one country franchise, and the President's strategy of devoting so much of our resources and attention to one country is short-sighted and counter-productive.

Some of my colleagues argue that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need.

Those arguments are false. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. The Feingold-Reid bill would end our involvement in the war without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a March 31, 2008, deadline after which funding for the war will be terminated, Congress can provide ample time for the President to safely redeploy our troops.

Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.'' Speaking of my proposal to end funding for the war, he said: ``There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized.''

This has been done before, in fact not that long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform?

Of course not. All of these members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.

That same day, October 15, 1993, several Senators--myself included-- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain would have eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal or in case of American POWs or MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty- eight Senators, most of them Republicans, opposed a measure to table that amendment. We did so because we understood that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops. As Senator Hatch said at the time, ``The McCain amendment provides the President with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops.''

Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it is responsible, and it is long overdue.

The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to this Congress--newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's mishandling of Iraq--to let the people's voices be heard. And it is up to this Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. Now it is up to Congress to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is just over 4 years since our brave troops marched into Baghdad, bringing an end to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Four long years later, however, over 141,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and more are on the way, while that country continues its tragic descent into widespread violence and civil war. Four years later, the President continues to insist that he has no intention of bringing this war to an end--or even acknowledging when it might end. And, 4 years later, the American people are calling out in greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended military mission.

That is why, today, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I am introducing legislation that would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days, and that would require redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008, by ending funding for the war on that date. While I would personally prefer an even stronger approach, with a shorter time-frame, for ending the war, I am pleased to be working with the Majority Leader on this legislation. Senator Reid understands the terrible costs of this war, and he understands the solemn obligation we have in this body to bring it to a close. As he put it just a few days ago, ``It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain.'' I thank Senator Reid for his support and for agreeing to bring the bill up for a vote before Memorial Day. I am also pleased to have the cosponsorship of Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse and Kennedy.

There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war, which the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) called a ``self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' And even if there were a military solution, civil war is only one of the problems causing violence and instability in Iraq. Again, let me quote the NIE: ``the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on- Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.''

Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it

make any sense to ask our troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle of ``Shia-on-Shia violence'' or ``criminally motivated violence'' in Iraq.

It does, however, make sense to address the ongoing threat posed by al Qaeda. For that reason, the Feingold-Reid legislation would allow ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations'' to continue in Iraq after March 2008. The bill also has narrow exceptions for U.S. troops to train and equip Iraqis and provide security for other U.S. troops and civilian personnel, but neither of these exceptions authorizes U.S. troops to engage in combat operations.

The Feingold-Reid bill allows targeted operations to take out terrorists who pose a threat to the United States, but it recognizes that maintaining a huge U.S. troop presence in Iraq doesn't help--in fact, it hurts--our global anti-terrorism efforts. By redeploying the vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq, this legislation will allow us to re-focus on the broader fight against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a one country franchise, and the President's strategy of devoting so much of our resources and attention to one country is short-sighted and counter-productive.

Some of my colleagues argue that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need.

Those arguments are false. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. The Feingold-Reid bill would end our involvement in the war without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a March 31, 2008, deadline after which funding for the war will be terminated, Congress can provide ample time for the President to safely redeploy our troops.

Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.'' Speaking of my proposal to end funding for the war, he said: ``There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized.''

This has been done before, in fact not that long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform?

Of course not. All of these members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.

That same day, October 15, 1993, several Senators--myself included-- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain would have eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal or in case of American POWs or MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty- eight Senators, most of them Republicans, opposed a measure to table that amendment. We did so because we understood that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops. As Senator Hatch said at the time, ``The McCain amendment provides the President with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops.''

Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it is responsible, and it is long overdue.

The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to this Congress--newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's mishandling of Iraq--to let the people's voices be heard. And it is up to this Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. Now it is up to Congress to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Schumer, Menendez, Brown and Cantwell in offering this legislation.

As we respond to the moral question of how we honor our sacred trust to care for our returning servicemembers and veterans, I am reminded of my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times.

He could've had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the GI Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American Dream.

And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters.

Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And nearly twice as many will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this.

Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. Many suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector.

All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us.

This is wrong. It's wrong because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they're abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it's wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right.

These heroes often have not connected to vital housing and supportive services that could make all of the difference. Many more low income veterans and veteran families live at the margins and are at risk of becoming homeless in the absence of permanent housing solutions and supportive services. While it's one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily, it's another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness. And despite the tremendous demand for homeless services, the federal government serves only a tiny fraction of those who are in need.

That's why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans.

So that we don't just leave them to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000, and make this authorization permanent. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live.

Every day in America, there are men and women on street corners with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar, sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home.

This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that so many of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it's time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.