A joint resolution to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.

Madam President, this is a piece of legislation we have reported out of the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Senate. Senator Murkowski, the vice chair, and I have worked hard on these issues. We have also made some changes since reporting the bill out of the Committee on Indian Affairs and will offer a substitute that will be cosponsored by both of us. We are now clearing that substitute, and I will, at the appropriate time today, I hope, offer the substitute version.

Some might wonder why there is a separate Indian health care bill, and the answer is relatively simple: because this country has a trust responsibility--a trust responsibility that has grown over a long period of time and has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, affirmed by treaties with various Indian tribes--a trust responsibility to provide health care for Native Americans.

The last comprehensive reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was 15 years ago in 1992. The act itself has been expired for the last 7 years, and it is long past the time for this Congress to reauthorize this program. Even though the act has expired, the Indian Health Service continues to provide Indian health care, despite not having a current authorization. But with advances in medicine and in the delivery and in the administration of health care, we need to finally pass this reauthorization and give the Indian population of this country the advantage of the expansions we will do in this reauthorization bill.

This legislation reflects the voices and the visions of Indian Country. It also responds to a number of concerns that have been raised by others, including the administration. The enactment of this reauthorization has been the top priority of myself and the vice chair of the committee, Senator Murkowski. I also wish to say the former vice chair of the committee, the late Senator Craig Thomas from Wyoming, at the start of this Congress, worked very hard on this legislation and cared very deeply about it. We bring this to the floor, remembering the work of Senator Thomas and recognizing his important work.

I wish to describe the need for the legislation as I begin before I describe the legislation itself. I have in the past couple weeks done some listening tours on Indian reservations, particularly in North Dakota, and we heard and saw many examples of deplorable conditions in Indian health care. It is true there are some health care providers in the Indian Health Service that are making very strong efforts to do the best they can, but they are overburdened and understaffed, underfunded. I wish to give some examples of that.

I wish to show a picture--a photograph, rather--of someone I have shown to the Senate before. This is a woman on the reservation in North Dakota, the Three Affiliated Tribes near New Town, ND. Her name is Ardel Hale Baker. Ardel Hale Baker has given me consent to use her image. She had chest pains that wouldn't quit. Her blood pressure was very high. So they went to the Indian health clinic, and she was diagnosed as having a heart attack. The clinic staff determined she needed to be sent immediately to the nearest hospital 80 miles away. She told the staff she didn't want to go in an ambulance because she knew she would end up being billed for the trip, and she didn't have the money. So she

signed a waiver declining the ambulance service, but the Indian Health Service said you have to take it anyway. We have diagnosed a heart attack happening here. You have to take the ambulance.

She arrived at the hospital and Ardel Hale Baker at the hospital was being taken out of the ambulance and transferred to a hospital gurney. As this woman, having a heart attack, was transferred to the hospital gurney, a nurse saw a piece of paper taped to her thigh and the piece of paper taped to her thigh was a piece of paper that was notifying the health care provider there wasn't going to be any money for this patient. The nurse asked this woman who was then having a heart attack what the envelope was. She pulled the envelope that was taped to her leg off her leg and asked: ``Mrs. Baker, is this yours?'' When they looked at the paper, here was the document. The document was from the Department of Health and Human Services, attached by the folks on the Indian reservation, taped to her leg as she left to be put in the ambulance, and it says:

Understand that Priority 1 care cannot be paid for at this

time due to funding issues. A formal denial letter has been

issued. If and when funds become available, the health

service will do everything possible to pay for Priority 1

care.

What this means is this--contract health care, which cannot be delivered on the reservation. This reservation has a clinic. It is open from 9 until 4 every day, 5 days a week. It is not a hospital, it is a clinic. For health care that cannot be delivered at that clinic, you have to refer the patient somewhere else. But that has to be paid for with contract health care funds, and they run out very quickly.

We had one reservation tell us they were out of health care contract money in January, 4 months into the fiscal year. On this reservation, they say don't get sick after June because the contract health care money is gone. This poor woman was loaded onto a hospital gurney with a piece of paper taped to her leg, saying to the hospital that if you admit her, understand that the Indian Health Service will not pay. This woman must pay. Obviously, this woman had no money. It was a way to say to the hospital that if you admit this patient, you are on your own.

Well, I visited a Sioux reservation at Standing Rock, the McLaughlin Indian Health Center, a couple of weeks ago. The Standing Rock Reservation clinic sees 10 patients in the morning and 10 in the afternoon. I believe they only have a physician assistant there. The reason given in the memorandum about the 10 and 10 was the clinic had only one medical provider and patients signed up in the morning. Anybody arriving after the quotas were made were turned away.

Harriet Archambault received her last prescription for serious hypertension and stomach medication on October 25, 2007. As the medicine ran out, she attempted five times to sign up at the clinic, leaving home early in the morning, driving 18 miles to the clinic but arriving too late each time. Her name was not on the top 10. She couldn't wait at the clinic for a possible opening because she provided day care for three of her grandchildren. So her medication ran out.

In a conversation with her sister prior to her death, she said: What do I have to do, die first before I finally get my medication? She tried five times to drive the nearly 20 miles to the clinic, and five times failed and never got her medicine, and she died a month later, November 27, 2007. Her husband told that story because he wants us to understand that delivery of health care is about life and death.

I have shown a photograph to my colleagues. I wish to do so again. It is a photo of a precious young lady who died, Ta'shon Rain Littlelight. I was at the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana when I met the grandmother of Ta'Shon Rain Littlelight. This was a beautiful 5-year- old girl. She loved to dance. This was traditional dance regalia, and she loved to go to dance contests. Ta'Shon Rain Littlelight died. Here is how she died. Her grandmother and mother and aunt told me she died, with the last 3 months of her life in unmedicated, severe pain. She went back and back and back to the Crow Tribe's Indian Health Service clinic for health problems. They began treating her for depression. Depression. During one of the visits, one of the grandparents of Ta'Shon said: Well, she has a bulbous condition on her fingertips and toes. That suggests there may be a lack of oxygen to the body, or something is going on. Can't you check that? Ta'Shon was treated for depression.

Finally, one day, August 2006, she was rushed from the Crow clinic, where she had gone once again to the St. Vincent Hospital in Billings, MT. The next day she was airlifted to the Denver Children's Hospital and was diagnosed with untreatable, incurable cancer. She lived for 3 more months after the tumor was discovered in what her grandmother said was unmedicated pain. She died in September 2006. Her parents and grandparents asked the question: If Ta'Shon's cancer had been detected sooner, would this child perhaps have lived?

When diagnosed with terminal illness, the one thing Ta'shon Rain Littlelight wanted to do was see Cinderella's castle, so Make-a-Wish sent her to Orlando. But the night before she was to see the castle, in the hotel room in Orlando, she died in her mother's arms.

The question is, for a young girl such as Ta'shon Rain Littlelight, should she have had the same opportunity in health care others have? Is this what we are willing to accept? Not me. This problem has a human face. I could tell a dozen more stories similar to Ardel Hale Baker and Ta'Shon Rain Littlelight.

I sat on Indian reservations for a total of probably 6 hours listening to stories about Indian health care. Let me talk about the statistics, if I might.

For tuberculosis, the mortality rate for American Indians and Alaskan Natives is seven times higher than the American population as a whole.

For alcoholism, the mortality rate is six times higher.

For diabetes, it is not double but triple--three times higher.

Twenty percent of American Indians and Alaskan Natives over age 45 have diabetes. There are reservations in my State where they estimate over 50 percent of the adults have diabetes.

American Indians and Alaskan Natives have higher rates of sudden infant death syndrome than the rest of the Nation.

Injuries are the leading cause of death for Native Americans ages 1 to 44. Injuries include pedestrian accidents, vehicular accidents, and suicides.

The cervical cancer rate for Indians and Alaskan Natives is four times higher than the rest of the population.

The suicide rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives between ages 15 and 34 is triple the national average. For Indian teens in the northern Great Plains, it is 10 times the national average.

I have shown my colleagues a photograph of Avis Little Wind. Avis Little Wind is a young teen who died. Avis Little Wind's relatives gave me permission to use her photograph. This is a 14-year-old girl who lay in bed in a fetal position for 90 days and then killed herself. Her sister had taken her life 2 years previous. Her dad had taken his life. For 90 days, somehow, everybody missed little Avis. The school missed wondering what happened. She lay in bed for 90 days and then took her life because she felt there was no hope and no help.

On that reservation, I went and met with the tribal council, school administrators, and her classmates to try to find out how does a kid, age 14, fall out of everyone's memory and everyone's vision? What I have discovered is there are a lot of issues, but there was not any kind of health care treatment available for a young girl, age 14, who had these kinds of problems. Even had there been health care available, there would not have been a car to drive her there. There is a basic lack of transportation. Aside from the fact they don't have the capability to provide the necessary health care treatment that is necessary to intervene, we have to do better. We have a responsibility to do better.

I wish to address the question of why it is our responsibility. Why is the plight of Native Americans a responsibility to the Federal Government? The simple answer is we are bound to follow the law set forth in the Constitution, in treaties, and in the laws of our land.

We are bound to follow the trust responsibility that has been imposed on us by the Constitution, the rulings of the Supreme Court, and by treaties.

Now, our predecessors long ago negotiated treaties with Indian tribes in which we received, as a Nation, hundreds and hundreds of millions of acres of Indian homeland to help build this great Nation of ours. In return for the enormous cessions of land by the Indians, our country promised certain things. We promised to provide things such as health care, education, and the general welfare of Native Americans.

This chart I am going to show you shows a provision from one of those treaties, and there are a lot of them, most of them broken by our country. This is with the northern Cheyenne and Arapaho. It says:

The U.S. hereby agrees to furnish annually to the Indians

who settle upon the reservation a physician.

It says we have your land and we are going to give you a reservation, but we also understand our responsibility, and we will provide health care. We have failed miserably to hold up our end of the bargain.

This bill doesn't provide health care for Native Americans simply because it is the moral and right thing to do. It is, certainly. It is a bill that requires us to keep our word. It is an active step to fulfill our responsibility, our end of the bargain, struck by our predecessors a long time ago.

In addition to the treaty obligations, the U.S. obligations to Indian tribes are set forth in hundreds of U.S. Supreme Court cases and Federal statutes.

I wish to especially refer to the next chart. In 1831, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, recognized a general trust relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. He held that the United States assumed a trust responsibility toward the tribes and their members. He explained the United States not only has the authority to deal with Indian tribes and their members, but also the responsibility and obligation to look after their well- being.

In describing Indian tribes as ``domestic dependent nations,'' he also established the relationship in that ruling between the United States and tribes as similar to one between ``a ward to his guardian.''

Now, at the time, these Supreme Court decisions were used by the United States to justify our actions toward the Indians, such as forcing Indians from homelands and placing them on reservations. But we cannot now ignore these court decisions merely because we are doing a poor job of fulfilling our obligation.

At the time of the Supreme Court's decision I described, the United States, through the Department of War, was already providing health care services to Indians on reservations. That practice began in 1803 and the United States has been providing such health care for over 200 years.

One of the initial reasons for providing health care on reservations was because we were the ones who were transmitting diseases to Indian nations and forcing them into environments where diseases would prevail. That became evident in 1912 when then-President Taft sent a special message to Congress summarizing a report that documented the deplorable health care conditions on Indian reservations.

In 1913, the Public Health Service reached a similarly distressing conclusion about the health of Native Americans. The Snyder Act was passed in 1921--I am providing the history so people understand what is the context of health care for Indian nations--one of many laws passed by the Congress over the last 100 years to try to address the health disparities between American Indians and the rest of our society: The Snyder Act of 1921, Indian Health Facilities Act of 1957, Indian Self- Determination of 1975, and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 as it was amended in 1992.

President Nixon, in 1970, said in a message to the Congress:

The special relationship between Indians and the Federal

Government is the result of solemn obligations which have

been entered into by the United States Government. Down

through the years through written treaties . . . our

Government has made specific commitments to the Indian

people. For their part, the Indians have often surrendered

claims to vast tracks of land. . . . In exchange, the

Government has agreed to provide community services such as

health, education and public safety, services which would

presumably allow Indian communities to enjoy a standard of

living comparable to that of other Americans. This goal, of

course, has never been achieved.

That is in 1970 from the President of the United States, describing our responsibility.

Let me talk just for a moment about the proposed legislation, having described the reason for us to bring a piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate.

We know--and it has been like pulling teeth to find this out--we know there is full-scale health care rationing on Indian reservations. It should be front-page headline news in all the biggest newspapers in the country, but it is not. If it was happening elsewhere, it would be front-page headlines, but it is not now.

Forty percent of health care needs of Native Americans are not being met. We meet 60 percent of the health care needs; 40 percent are unmet. So it is rationed, and that is why Ardel Hale Baker, having a heart attack, is wheeled in to a hospital with a piece of paper taped to her leg saying: ``This isn't going to be paid for.'' It is health care rationing, there is no other way to describe it, no soft way to put a shine on it. It is health care rationing. It shouldn't happen, and I think it is an outrage, because it is happening on Indian reservations. It is seldom covered by the 24/7 news hour, but it should be, because it is a scandal. I hope this is the first step to begin addressing it.

This legislation will be described by some who come to the floor of the Senate as not enough. I agree with that assessment. This is a first step, at last, at long last, that should have been done a decade ago. It is a first step in the right direction, but it is a first step as a precursor to real reform because we need reform.

This is a reauthorization 10 years after it should have been done. We are reauthorizing and expanding programs that I will describe, but we need to do much more. When we move this legislation through the Senate, through the House, and it is signed by the President, I intend, with the Indian Affairs Committee, to begin immediately with new and more aggressive reforms, and it is urgent we do so.

This bill expands the types of cancer screenings that are available to American Indians. It expands the types of communicable and infectious diseases that health programs can monitor and prevent beyond tuberculosis, which now is the emphasis, to include any disease. It expands the recruitment and scholarship programs and authorizes nurses currently serving in the Indian Health Service to spend time teaching students in nursing programs. These are critical programs, given that there is a 21-percent vacancy rate for physicians in the Indian Health Service, and the entire Nation faces a shortage of nurses.

There is a new program in this legislation dealing with teen suicide on Indian reservations. I held hearings on this subject. We have worked for legislation that will provide screenings and mental health treatment, and we begin to address those issues with this legislation.

Treatment for diabetes: We held a hearing to examine the threat of diabetes to the health of American Indians. It is an unbelievable threat. Diabetes emerges as the most serious and devastating health problems of our time, and nowhere in this country is it worse than on Indian reservations. It affects the Indian population in a dramatic way.

I ask any of my colleagues, if they wonder about that, go to a reservation and see if they have a dialysis unit, and watch the people in the dialysis unit getting dialysis, some having lost limbs, having one leg cut off, another leg cut off, still trying to stay alive. The ravages of diabetes is an unbelievable scourge in Indian country. It is a serious problem for our entire country, but nowhere is it worse than among American Indians. In some communities, the prevalence reaches 60 percent of adults. In the 14-year period from 1990 to 2004, the diabetes rate among Indian kids 15 to 19 years old increased 128 percent.

We expand and enhance the current diabetes screening program. We direct the Secretary to establish an approach to monitor the disease, provide continuing care among Native Americans,

and authorize the Secretary to establish a dialysis program to treat this threatening disease.

Health service to Native American veterans: It is well documented that there is no population in this country that has participated with greater distinction or in greater numbers per capita serving in this Nation's military than Native Americans--none. Many Indians served in World War I even before our Nation recognized Indians as citizens of our country. Think of that, we had American Indians sign up to fight for this country when they were not yet considered citizens of this country.

I was checking recently, and 1962 was the last time when a State finally passed legislation allowing Indians to vote in the State. Think of that, go back to 1961 and understand, there were places in this country where American Indians were not allowed to vote in State elections. And until the early part of the last century, they were not considered citizens. Yet they were signing up to go to war for this country, to fight for this country.

I attended a ceremony on the Spirit Lake Reservation a few months ago and passed out medals--Silver Stars, a lot of medals--to three soldiers who are now elderly men who served this country in the Second World War with unbelievable valor, had fought all around this world for this country and earned these medals--Silver Star, Purple Heart, and various others. They were enormously proud of their country.

Go to a reservation and find out what percent of the population of eligible adults sign up to serve in the military on an Indian reservation and you will be surprised. There is no group of Americans who signs up in bigger numbers to serve this country in the military.

Senator Murkowski and I have a provision in this bill that deals with health services to Native American veterans. More than 44,000 American Indians out of a total Native American population of less than 350,000 at that point served in World War II. Think of that. Out of a population of 350,000, 44,000 of them served in the Second World War.

We had a ceremony in this Capitol Building, honoring the Code Talkers who played a significant role in intercepting and deciphering the codes used by the Nazis. We gave the Congressional Gold Medal to those Native American Code Talkers.

We direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide for the expenses incurred by any eligible Native American veteran who receives any medical service that is authorized by the Department of Veterans Affairs and administered at an Indian Health Service or tribal facility. We want the Indian Health Service to be able to get the funding to provide that health care.

This bill also provides a provision dealing with domestic violence. My colleague, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, was particularly instrumental in this provision. We held a hearing to examine the causes of and solutions to stopping violence against Native American women.

We received testimony that more than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetime. That is pretty unbelievable. We received reports of rapes that were not investigated. We received reports of circumstances where there isn't even the basics, just a rape kit available to take evidence.

We have included in this legislation some approaches that I think will be very helpful: community education programs related to domestic violence and sexual abuse, victim support services and medical treatment, including examinations performed by sexual assault nurse examiners, and a requirement for rape kits. I think we have made significant progress. I thank Senator Murkowski for her special interest in that section of the bill as well.

Finally, we have a section of the bill that deals with convenient care service demonstration projects. The reason for that is I don't want to see the rest of the country move toward convenient care, walk- in clinics with long hours, 7 days a week, only to have Indian reservations be out there with these clinics that serve at times that are not very convenient.

I have a photograph of a clinic I visited last week on the New Town Reservation. They are open, I believe, from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m., 5 days a week. Good for them. They take an hour off for the noon hour, by the way, and close it. I think it is 9 a.m., maybe 8. This is the Minne- Tohe Health Center, of the Three Affiliated Tribes. I visited there within the last week or so. They are open 6 or 8 hours a day, take an hour off for lunch and close it down. If at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, you are having a heart attack there, you are in trouble. If it is Saturday and you have a bone fracture, you are in trouble, because you are 80 miles from the hospital in Minot, ND.

My point is, why not develop a model care system of convenient care clinics open long hours, 7 days a week? Let's extend the opportunity for real health care on Indian reservations.

We have done a lot of other things in this legislation, including establishing the framework for the next approach on reforming this system completely, and that is the establishment of a bipartisan commission on Indian health care which will study the delivery of this system and recommend approaches that we will begin working on immediately in the Indian health care area in our committee.

I have described a number of items that are not positive, and I will later today describe some good news, because there are some positive things going on. One of the Indian reservations I visited in the last week has an Indian health care clinic that is dramatically underfunded. The tribal council voted to take $500,000 of the funds that belong to the tribal government and move it to try to support that clinic. That is good news. Good for them. That takes a lot of courage and commitment.

There are good things happening, and I am going to talk about that a little later today.

The fact is, we have a desperate situation with respect to health care in the Indian nation, and it cannot continue. We cannot allow it to continue. In the name of children who should not have died--Avis Little Wind or Ta'Shon Rain Littlelight or others--we cannot allow this to continue to happen. This country is better than that.

I close by quoting Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Tribe, located in what is now Idaho. Chief Joseph, one of the great Indian leaders, was pretty upset about a lot of things. Here is what he said about broken promises:

Good words do not last long unless they amount to

something. Words do not pay for my dead people.

Good words cannot give me back my children. Good words will

not give my people good health and stop them from dying.

I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart

sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken

promises.

This legislation on the floor of the Senate is not just some other bill. This is a step toward the completion of promises that have been made, not ``we hope to help you,'' but promises--promises that have been made in treaties, promises that have to be kept as a result of a trust responsibility that exists with American Indians.

To make the case finally, let me say this: There is a chart that shows how much we spend per person on health care, and that chart describes something I think all need to know about the commitment of Congresses and Presidents for a long period of time.

This chart shows we have a responsibility to provide health care for Federal prisoners. We incarcerate them because they committed a crime, and we stick them in prison. But in their prison cell, we have a responsibility for their health care. That is our job, and we meet that responsibility.

We also have a responsibility for health care for American Indians, because of a trust responsibility and because of treaties we signed after we expropriated massive amounts of their land. We don't meet that responsibility. In fact, this chart shows that we spend almost twice as much per person providing health care for incarcerated Federal prisoners as we do providing health care for American Indians. That is why little 5-year-old Ta'Shon Rain Littlelight dies, because she doesn't have the same access to health care that the rest of us do. It is why when a woman goes to the doctor, the doctor shows up at our committee and testifies, saying: You know, a woman came to me who had been to the Indian Health Service doctor. She had a knee

so bad--it was bone on bone--it was unbelievably painful. He said it was the kind of knee that, if it belonged to somebody in my family or yours, we would get knee replacement surgery. We would have to get knee replacement surgery because we wouldn't be able to live with it that way. You can't live with that kind of pain. But she told me she went to Indian Health Service, and they told her to wrap the knee in cabbage leaves for 4 days and it would be okay. Wrap the knee in cabbage leaves. This is a knee which we would get replaced, yet this Indian woman is told to wrap it in cabbage leaves.

Are we meeting our responsibility? People are dying. Forty percent of the health care need is unmet. I have described the conditions that exist in these health clinics and on reservations. The answer is, we are not meeting our responsibility, and at least from my standpoint, and I believe I speak for the vice chair, though she will speak for herself, it is past time, long past the time when this country should keep its promise.

Chief Joseph is long gone, but that doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to keep our promise to the first Americans. They were here first. To this point, we have had all kinds of circumstances over many years of pushing them to reservations after we took their land, then pushing them off the reservation and saying they had to go to the city. So they got a one-way bus ticket and were told: By the way, we want you to mainstream, to get you off this reservation. So they got a ticket and were sent to the city, and then we decided that was wrong, and we brought them back.

What has been happening in this country in public policy dealing with American Indians is unbelievable, and it has to stop. Let us meet our responsibility, keep our promises, and provide decent health care to the people who were here first. That is what this bill does.

This bill is just a step in the right direction, and it will be followed by significant reform. When we do that, I will feel that, finally, at long last, this country has kept an important promise to those who were here first.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is the request for a presentation on the bill without amendment?

Mr. President, I will agree to that request with the understanding it is on the bill without an amendment. I would also like to add to the request that Senator Bingaman be recognized to offer an amendment immediately following the presentation by Senator Stevens.

Mr. President, Senator Stevens is to be recognized following Senator Gregg and then Senator Bingaman, both of whom I believe are here. Certainly, if the Senator wishes I would not object, but both I think have been waiting for some period of time on the bill.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for offering the amendment. I know he offers it on behalf of himself and Senator Thune from South Dakota. I fully support the amendment. This amendment will provide maximum opportunity to stretch the Indian health care dollars. The amendment is a thoughtful amendment that will, in my judgment, strengthen the underlying bill.

I am very interested in supporting it. We are working to see if we can get a vote on this amendment today. I believe the majority leader wishes to begin voting today, and I hope perhaps we can arrange consent to have a vote on this amendment later this afternoon.

I also thank the majority leader for bringing this bill to the floor of the Senate. When I was vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee and Senator John McCain was chairman, we worked on this bill. We tried very hard to get it to the floor, but we were not successful. This is the culmination of lot of work and important work, in my judgment, to get it to the floor. I appreciate the cooperation of the majority leader for giving us the opportunity to get it to the floor.

My hope is we will have the cooperation of other Members of the Senate. If there are amendments to be offered, we wish they would come and offer those amendments. We would like to get amendments and time agreements and try to find a way to complete this legislation.

I also failed to mention earlier that the Senate Finance Committee had a referral on this bill. They did some very important work. Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, and other members of the Senate Finance Committee were very helpful, as has been Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi on the HELP Committee, and Senator Kyl and others.

This bill is bipartisan. We are trying very hard to get this legislation completed. As I indicated earlier, this is long past the time when this should have been done. People are literally dying for lack of decent health care that most of us take for granted, most of us expect and receive. That is not the case with respect to Native Americans. We desperately need to change this situation.

My hope is, if there are those who are intending to offer amendments today, that they come to the floor and offer the amendments. We know of a number of amendments. I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Bingaman in offering his amendment now. If there are others, I hope we can proceed.

Mr. President, I wish to briefly speak about another issue we have been dealing with. My colleague from New Hampshire spoke briefly, and I think in the absence of others being in the Chamber, I wish to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, some of my colleagues have spoken today about the difficulty in the economy. I am concerned about it, as are virtually all Americans at this point. The stock market seems to be bouncing around like a yo-yo. The economy is slowing and consumer spending is down. Recently, there was a substantial increase in unemployment in a single month--and a whole series of items that suggest there are real economic problems.

My colleague from New Hampshire said: I am concerned about a stimulus package. So am I, but in my judgment, we need to err on the side of taking action rather than err on the side of doing nothing. The Federal Reserve Board this morning cut interest rates by 75 basis points. That is a blunt instrument of monetary policy to try to address what is seen as a serious weakness in this economy.

I want to say this: No matter what we do--and we almost certainly will produce some sort of stimulus package--I believe a stimulus package should provide some tax rebates to middle and lower income people. It also ought to provide an extension of unemployment benefits. We have done that during previous economic downturns. I think a stimulus package should provide investment tax credits for businesses with an end date and other temporary tax incentives to persuade businesses to make capital investments now when the economy would benefit most from it. So we should do two things: We should put money in the hands of consumers, middle to lower income consumers, and we also should stimulate businesses to make needed capital investments earlier rather than later in order to prime the pump with respect to the economy.

I also think it is important to consider, even as we talk about stimulus, making investments in this country's infrastructure. There is nothing that puts people back to work more quickly than money that goes to building roads and bridges and making other improvements in this country's infrastructure that are so desperately needed. Many of us are working on and talking about that issue. But that ought to be a part of a second phase of a stimulus package. To ignore that, in my judgment, is to ignore significant job-creating opportunities at a time when we desperately need those opportunities.

Having said all of that, I believe we need to act to provide confidence to the American people about the future--after all, that is what the business cycle is about. If people are confident about the future, they manifest that confidence. They take the trip they wanted to take. They buy the car they wanted to buy. They do the things that manifest confidence in the future. That represents expansion.

If they feel as if the future has some troublesome aspects, they say: I am going to defer taking the trip, I am going to defer buying that car or piece of equipment, I am going to defer purchasing that piece of furniture, and then the economy contracts.

There are some in Washington with an overinflated sense of self who think this is a ship of state with an engine room. And you get out of the engine room and you dial the knobs and the switches and the levers--M-1 B, taxes and all of these things--and somehow the ship of state just sails right on forward.

That is not the case at all. This ship of state moves or fails to move based on the people's expectation about the future. If they are optimistic, they do things that express that optimism, and the economy expands.

I wish to talk for a moment about some of the fundamentals. We can genuflect here and even do some dancing in the Senate Chamber about the issue of stimulus packages, but if we don't address the fundamentals, we are not going to get out of this problem.

Every single day, 7 days a week, all year long, we import $2 billion more in goods than we export. So we run up a

bill of $700 billion plus a year in trade deficits. Our trade situation is an abysmal failure. Do you think the rest of the country doesn't know that? Do you think that has no impact on the falling dollar? Of course it does. It is one of the reasons the dollar is falling.

In addition to that, we have a fiscal policy that has been reckless. Last year, we had a $196 billion request from the President in front of us, none of it paid for--add it to the debt, he says--for Iraq and Afghanistan and restoring military accounts. Well, that is $16 billion a month, $4 billion a week, and none of it paid for. That is on top of the yearly deficit, which is understated. It uses all the Social Security money as if it were other revenue in order to show a lower deficit.

The American people know better and so do the financial markets. They see the combination of a reckless fiscal policy and a trade policy that is deeply in debt. They see a country whose fundamentals are out of line. These electronic herds, called the currency buyers or currency traders, when they see these things and they run against the currency, a country is in trouble. We have to get our fundamentals in order. We need to fix our trade policy, stop these hemorrhaging deficits, and we need to fix our fiscal policy.

We can't say yes to a President who says let's fight a war and do tax cuts for wealthy Americans at the same time. Let's fight a war, spend a lot of money doing it--two-thirds of a trillion at this point but heading north--and none of it paid for; all of it borrowed. This from a conservative President. This Congress has to stop saying yes to that. This reckless fiscal policy has helped set the stage and table for part of what we have seen the last couple of weeks, the jitters and concerns about where this country is headed and the economic difficulty we are now in.

Let me talk about something my colleague from New Hampshire talked about, and that is the underlying issue of the so-called subprime loan scandal. That is a fascinating thing. Someday somebody will do a book about that and just about that issue. Here is what happened, and we know better. Everybody knows better.

You wake up in the morning and go to brush your teeth and perhaps you have a television set on. You are sort of getting ready for work and you see a television ad. We see them every morning, and the ads say: Do you have bad credit? Do you have trouble getting a loan? Have you been missing payments on your home loan? Have you filed for bankruptcy? It doesn't matter. Come to us; we will give you a loan.

We have all seen these ads, and you think to yourself: Well, how can they do that? How can they advertise that if you have bad credit you can borrow money from them? The fact is, you can't do that. But that is what we were doing all across this country. Here is what was happening. Mortgage brokers were making a fortune in big fees by selling subprime mortgages. The companies that were writing these mortgages, the largest of which was Countrywide Financial, were saying to people: You know what, take our low-interest mortgage, with a teaser rate at 2 percent. It won't reset for 3 years. By the way, if you have an existing home loan, so you can get rid of that and we will lend you money you can pay back at a 2-percent interest rate, and it will not reset for 3 years, during which time the market is going to go up and you can flip it and sell it. In any event, what we will do is decide that on your home loan you don't have to make any principal payments at this point, just interest. We will add the principal later on.

Or they will say, borrow this money from us, and we will make the first 12 months' payments. For the first year, you make no payments at all.

OK, that practice was totally, completely and thoroughly irresponsible by a bunch of greedy folks. They are talking to people, cold-calling them and saying, we would like to put you in a better mortgage but not telling them, of course, there is a prepayment penalty. They are telling you monthly mortgage payments that didn't include real estate taxes, insurance costs, and so forth. So they were quoting borrowers 2 percent teaser rates with prepayment penalties that didn't include the escrow. So they put these people in these loans.

Now, were the victims partly at fault? Sure. By victims, I am talking about those who took these loans out. But these were high-powered salespeople working for big companies that were putting bad products in the hands of a lot of unsuspecting people.

Then what do they do? They have these subprime loans packaged up with other loans. It is sort of like the old days when they used to put sawdust in sausage in the meat plants and mix it all up as filler. Then they would cut it up and you would never know where the filler was and where the sausage was. Well, similar to that, they would take the good loans and the subprime loans and they would mix them all together and put them in securities--securitize them. Then they would sell the securities to these hedge funds, among others. So hedge funds were buying securities. They didn't have the foggiest idea what they were buying because the rating agency said it looked okay. These agencies were dead from the neck up.

Everybody was greedy, and now the whole tent comes collapsing down. Now, you say, how could that be? Well, it was because people were loaning money to people who were never going to be able to repay it. The CEO of Countrywide, the largest company doing this, made hundreds of millions of dollars selling the stock back. It looks like Countrywide is going to go belly up, so Bank of America comes in and buys Countrywide. No idea why, but the big guys, they all waltz off smiling ear to ear, sparkling teeth and big smiles. Why? Because they made a lot of money--hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, all these folks can't repay their mortgages and are left to try to pick up the pieces and then we wonder what on Earth happened here.

In the midst of all this, this morning I was listening to a TV show with a man named Jim Cramer, who talks about stock prices. He has a TV show. Half the time he is yelling. I don't have the foggiest idea why he thinks that is the approach to use to thoughtfully talk about stock prices, but apparently it is successful. So he says this morning that one of the ways we should deal with the problem in the economy is to start trying to provide some recompense or some money to the insurers of bonds and other things that are going to get hit--derivatives, he said. And I thought, I understand that language. He is talking about credit default swaps.

That sounds like a flatout foreign language, but it can't be because I don't speak a foreign language. Credit default swaps. So what Jim Cramer was talking about on the television this morning is that in order to bail out this country, his approach is we ought to provide about 50 percent of taxpayer money to the losses for those who have credit default swaps. Let me talk a moment about what this means because, as I said, it sounds completely foreign.

Hedge funds in this country are largely unregulated. I, Senator Feinstein, and many others have tried for a long time to say that is dangerous for this country. Hedge funds are somewhere around $1 to $1.5 trillion. Now, that is not so much, considering mutual funds are about $9 trillion. The total of the stocks and bonds in the stock market and bond funds are about $40 billion. So hedge funds are about $1 to $1.5 trillion. But hedge funds represent one-half of all the trades on the stock market. Think of that--$1 trillion plus unregulated--and they comprise half the trades on the stock market.

Now, because of the very heavy use of the leverage, it is a fact that hedge funds can lose much more than they are worth. If somebody goes into a casino in Las Vegas with a pocketful of money and grinning, thinking they are going to win a lot of money but end up losing it all, in most cases the only thing they lose is the money they have. That is not the case with heavily leveraged hedge funds.

That is why the episode with Long-Term Capital Management, a hedge fund that had the smartest people working for them, was so important that over a decade ago the Federal Reserve Board had to try to save Long-Term Capital Management. That hedge fund was unbelievably leveraged, over $1 trillion. Its collapse would have affected the entire American economy.

So here is what we have. We have this language now called credit default

swaps. The credit default swap is a derivative, and it is an insurance policy on a bond or some other instrument. The person who sells the swap is actually writing a policy that collects a premium, and it says if nothing goes wrong with the underlying instrument, the person who sold the swap gets the premium and looks like a genius. If, however, the bond or the underlying instrument collapses, then the swap seller has to make good. The notional amount--understand this--the notional amount, the aggregate of bonds, loans, and other debt called by credit default swaps in the United States, is now $26 trillion.

I have spoken before on the floor of the Senate about creating a house of cards, every child has done it, and then pulled out a card on the bottom. Everyone understands what happens to the house of cards. We now have roughly $1-$1.5 trillion in hedge funds, as I understand it, doing one-half of the stock trades on the stock exchanges. In most cases, hedge funds have a notional value of $26 trillion in credit default swaps, and the question is: Where is all this exposure? How much exposure? We don't know. Most hedge funds are unregulated, and a whole lot of folks in this Chamber have wanted to keep it that way, despite the efforts of some of us who believe it is dangerous to our economy to pretend this kind of risk does not exist.

It is interesting to me that we are in this situation and troubling to me we are in a situation that all of us knew was going to be difficult. You can't run a $2-billion-a-day trade deficit without consequence. Warren Buffett always pointed out with the housing bubble that every bubble bursts. It is one of the immutable laws. The question isn't whether, it is when. He makes the same point about the trade deficit. The trade deficit is unsustainable. The question isn't whether we will see consequences, the question is when will those consequences exist.

The consequences are beginning to exist now, with the declining value of the dollar and the combination of all the other issues--the highest deficits in human history, the trade deficit, a fiscal policy that is completely and thoroughly reckless, combined with the scandal that exists with respect to subprime loans and the massive amount of unregulated hedge fund credit swap defaults. I mean it is staggering to see what we have done. Again, the credit default swap is a notional derivative whose value is dramatic and the consequences of which could be dramatic for the entire economy.

Most regulators were looking the other way and doing so deliberately. If ever one wonders whether thoughtful and effective regulation is necessary, look at all this. If anyone has ever wondered whether you can get by with a trade deficit of $2 billion a day, look at where we find ourselves now. If anyone ever wonders if you can spend money you don't have on things you don't need, look at this country's fiscal policy and its consequences for the country.

Having said that, all of us want the same thing for this country's future. We want a country that grows and provides economic opportunity. We want a country where the fundamentals are fair and put in order. That means a trade deficit that is eliminated, or at least close to eliminated, and a trade policy that works for this country's interest. It means a fiscal policy that pays our bills, and it means effective regulation in areas where you have substantial potential risk for the entire economy, and that means regulation of certain hedge funds' transactions and derivatives now well outside the view of public regulators.

So I think this is going to be a very difficult time for this country. It is one thing for us to take a shower in the morning, put on a suit and drive to work and talk about it, it is another thing for the people who go home tonight and say: Sweetheart, I have lost my job, not because I didn't do a good job, but they are laying people off where I work. That is a consequence for that family in which unemployment is 100 percent.

We face some pretty daunting challenges. My hope with this President and with Republicans and Democrats working together, as the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate said last week, with all of us working together, combined with the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, that we can develop some thoughtful approaches in fiscal policy that might lead us in a constructive direction to say to the American people we believe you can honestly look at the future and have a positive view. But they won't believe that if they feel we are not serious about the fundamentals. The American people aren't going to be fooled. If we don't fix our trade policies and get rid of these unbelievable deficits, if we don't put our fiscal house in order and stop doing what the administration suggests we do, we are in big trouble.

We had a Treasury Secretary named Paul O'Neill--the first Treasury Secretary under this President. If ever there was a straight shooter in Government, it was Paul O'Neill. He came here as an executive from an aluminum company. He was blunt-spoken, an interesting guy, and I happened to like him a lot. Paul O'Neill got fired. In fact, Dick Cheney is the one who fired him, at the request of the President. When fired, he was told that deficits don't matter. Deficits don't matter.

Well, we now understand they do matter and we have to do something about it. This fiscal policy is out of control. Our trade policy is broken and we have had regulators who looked the other way while we had grand theft in this area of the subprime scandal, and it is time we tell the American people we are serious about addressing these issues and we are going to do it now.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I so appreciate the passion and the advocacy of my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, and working together on the Indian Affairs Committee on an issue in which I think both of us believe very strongly. Both of us believe in the commitment we have to the American Indians and the Alaska Natives, particularly insofar as providing them with a level of access to health care. That commitment is one that in far too many areas we have failed, and that is why it is so important that we are able to advance, as the first legislation of this new year, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2007.

We just celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King, and as a nation we think about that time in our history when we were not proud of how we treated one another based on color of skin and ethnicity. We know that in many parts of this country, we still have far to go, but we are making progress. Yet, as we look to how the American Indians, the Alaska Natives, and so many in our Native communities have been treated when it comes to the basics in health care, that is an area where I think we need to look very critically and say we can and we must do more.

When I first became the vice chair of this committee, Chairman Dorgan and I sat down, and he said to me: Lisa, what are your priorities for the Indian Affairs Committee? What is it that you would like to see advanced? He told me what his priorities were. It is awfully nice being able to walk into that new relationship and agree that the most important thing we could do was to work together in a bipartisan effort to advance legislation that has been working through the process for a number of years, for a number of Congresses, and to successfully move that through the Congress.

We have worked on this bill through three committees of jurisdiction--the Indian Affairs Committee, the Finance Committee, and the HELP Committee--before finally bringing this here to the Senate Floor. I believe this legislation brings new hope for Indian health. It represents a step forward, a step toward the goal of providing our first Americans with health care that is on par with other Americans. It is not the end-all and be-all, but it is a first step, and I am encouraged that we have the opportunity to produce this legislation in support of that goal.

As my colleague has noted, this day has been far too long in coming. Efforts to enact comprehensive reform for the Indian Health Care Improvement Act began in 1999. This act was extended for 1 year back in 2001 through legislation introduced by Senator Thune when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. Since then, the Indian Affairs Committee has shepherded several reauthorization bills through multiple Congresses, through multiple hearings, through multiple markups, but it has yet to be reauthorized despite the very good efforts of a great many.

This bill would reauthorize and would amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and applicable parts of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as well as the Social Security Act.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act provides a basic framework for delivery of health care services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. As Senator Dorgan has indicated, this is a Federal responsibility arising from the Constitution, arising from the treaties and from Federal court cases.

The act itself, first enacted back in 1976, was last comprehensively reauthorized in 1992. Think about the status of health care back in 1992 and what has changed. Certainly, in my State of Alaska, we have been able to do so much more in our remote areas because of what we are able to do through Telehealth. Well, back in 1992, I can guarantee you we were not doing then what we are doing now. It is so vitally important that we provide for this authorization to update a system by passing this bill.

We recognize there are still some outstanding issues that need to be resolved. I would like to think they are not central parts to this bill, and I am very confident we can deal with them if our colleagues work with us in the same very bipartisan way that we on the committee have done to advance this.

Now, Chairman Dorgan has given good background in terms of an overview, the need for reauthorization, and he has highlighted it with stories that touch our hearts, as they should. I wish to elaborate a little bit further on the legislation, how it developed, and give that overview as well as some of the key improvements we have in S. 1200.

To really understand the framework of the Indian health care system under this act, you have to keep in mind that there is very significant interplay between this act and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act provides the process whereby Indian tribes and the tribal organizations contract or compact to take over administration of programs from the Indian Health Service. It is the interplay between these two statutes that provides a great deal of the backdrop for many of the principles that underlie this reauthorization.

The act essentially governs programs for the recruitment and retention of Indian health professionals, for health promotion and disease prevention, for facilities, urban Indians, and a comprehensive behavioral health system. The act also governs important authorizations which increase access to care where there is third-party reimbursement. It also sets forth the administrative organization for the Indian Health Service. Finally, it contains reporting requirements and other regulatory authority for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The bill is intended to improve Indian health care in three areas: First, by increasing access to health care; second, by updating the authorized

services and programs; and third, by facilitating innovative financing systems to help support Indian health.

So let's talk about the increase in access to care. In Alaska, we are talking about access to care all over the State. Geographically, as you know, we are very large, populations are very small, and providers are very limited. And this is throughout all systems, not necessarily just the Indian Health Service. This legislation includes programs to increase outreach and enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP. We need to have aggressive outreach in order to ensure that the Native people who are eligible for these programs participate in them and so that they can navigate through a relatively challenging enrollment process.

We recognized the critical importance of the Medicare, the Medicaid, and the SCHIP programs for Indian patients. There was an Indian woman by the name of Ski who lives in southwestern Oklahoma. Along with her husband, she takes care of her three grandchildren and her great- granddaughter. About 4 years ago, Ski's doctor, after checking her x rays, found a large spot on her lungs. They also diagnosed her with thyroid cancer. Sadly, though, the IHS Contract Health Service, which is intended to provide for the kind of specialty care Ski needed, notified her that the funds aren't available to pay for it. This is very similar to some of the stories my colleague has mentioned.

Without this additional care, Ski, who is the primary caregiver for her grandchildren and great-grandchild, wondered if she would be around to watch her children and great-grandchild grow up. Fortunately, Ski won't have to face the prospect of living without health care because she did receive it--not through the Contract Health Service but through Medicare. It was these resources which allowed Ski to undergo the biopsy which ruled out lung cancer and to see a pulmonologist and receive testing on a regular basis for the pulmonary fibrosis she was eventually diagnosed to have. She had complete removal of her cancerous thyroid and since that time has been able to receive the follow-up treatments, the testing, and the examinations, all of which we know are very costly but which Medicare helped to cover so that Ski can continue her life raising her family.

She is fortunate and, unfortunately, somewhat of a rarity. Many Indian patients do not have Medicare or Medicaid to help them even though they may be eligible. In the legislation we have, S. 1200, it will help those Indian patients in accessing Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP through the outreach and the enrollment programs as well as other means.

Now, accessing third-party reimbursement also helps Indian health providers. The Makah Tribe is a good example of why we should include the provisions to assist tribes in participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP. The Makah Tribe is in Washington State, and they are located on a very picturesque 44-square-mile Indian reservation filled with rich forests, wildlife, birds, and plant life--a very beautiful area.

From their home, tribal members can cross the Strait of Juan de Fuca and during the summers go fishing or boating in the Pacific. Although their home is a place of amazing beauty, it is also a very remote part of the State which presents some daunting challenges to the delivery of health services to the tribal members.

It has been reported that the tribe operates a small ambulatory clinic with over 2,000 users and only two doctors. Due to the remoteness of the clinic, the tribe has difficulty recruiting health care professionals, including dentists.

Over 70 miles away you have the nearest town with a full-service hospital, Port Angeles. But those 70 miles can be treacherous to negotiate. It is a winding road, a difficult road. There are several instances when the road has been washed out by storms, leaving no access to or from the reservation.

So there is no surprise that Port Angeles, being a larger town and a more accessible town, has salaries that are more attractive than the reservation.

The Makah Tribe administers the health care services through a self- governance compact for which the tribe should receive contract support costs. However, those contract support costs do not cover all of the indirect costs of health care services. So this impacts the tribe's ability to provide for competitive salaries and to provide for that full array of health care services. But despite all of those challenges, the Makah Tribe has remained resourceful. They are in the process of improving their third-party reimbursements, in particular the Medicare Part B access for eligible people on the reservation.

It is these additional reimbursements that assist the tribe in essentially hedging against the insufficient contract support costs. So when you hear of situations like what we are seeing with the Makah, recognize this legislation will serve to benefit the tribal health providers as well as the Indians who are served by allowing for, again, the additional reimbursement for improving access to care.

The legislation will also improve access by removing barriers to such enrollment such as the waivers of Medicaid copays and allowing the use of tribal enrollment documentation for Medicaid enrollment. These are very important to provisions in this legislation. I hope we will hear more of the good stories, the stories like Ski's, rather than the very damning stories we hear of the system currently.

Now, in updating health care services in Native communities, the bill establishes permanent authority for home and community-based services, and these are services which have been operating in the State of Alaska with very impressive results.

I mentioned just a few minutes ago Alaska's size. Many know Alaska Natives have to travel enormous distances away from their home communities to obtain any level of specialized care. Some people think we make this map up, just to show Alaska's shape over the continental United States--but this is actually true to size--the State of Alaska does stretch from just about Florida into Arizona and beyond, from Canada down to the southern area. Geographically, we are huge.

We have another chart that indicates how the distances for an individual coming from, let's say, Unalaska down here where Arizona is on the map. Unalaska is not only our State's largest fishing port, it is the largest, in terms of volume of fish, fishing community in the United States of America.

For an individual who is coming from Unalaska, which just has a small clinic, to come to Anchorage, which is where all of the points converge in the middle of the map, it is the equivalent of essentially going from Arizona to Kansas for your medical appointment to come to the Alaska Native Medical Center where you can see a specialist.

To give another example, the residents of Barrow, at the northern most part of the State, also have to travel to Anchorage to obtain specialty medical services in the Alaska Native Medical Hospital. That is the distance of coming from the Canadian border down to Kansas for medical services.

If you are coming out of the southeastern part of our State, in many of our island communities, again, you are moving from essentially Alabama or Florida into Kansas. The distances we deal with to provide access to care are realities for us in the State that other people cannot relate to.

We are not talking 100 miles, we are talking several hundred miles. When you put it in context that way, you recognize it is not just the time and the distance traveled, but it is the expense and the distance traveled.

Mr. President, as I was mentioning the distances that we deal with, I mentioned the time to travel, the expense to travel, but think about the situation if perhaps you are elderly, you are ill, or perhaps you do not know what is wrong, and you have to leave your village to go to our cities, our largest cities, which is very intimidating for many of our Alaska Natives in the first place.

They are away from their family, they are away from their community members, they are away from their traditional foods, they are away from their traditional activities. Many of our elders do not speak English, so they are coming into town where the language is different. Think about how well you would heal or how well you would feel in truly a strange and foreign place like this.

Well, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation located out in Bethel,

Alaska, in western Alaska, decided this is unacceptable, to have to pull everybody from the villages so far away. And they developed a village and a regional service structure to help the elders, to help the Alaska Native patients with chronic diseases to continue living in their homes or in their community rather than being sent hundreds of miles away to receive special nursing care.

It was their pilot program to take over all home and community-based care in their region, which resulted in a reduction in service waiting time for the disabled and the elders in the region and truly improved the patients' health status level. This legislation may enable other tribal programs around the country to also engage in home and community-based care which would allow Indian patients to remain in their homes rather than face a lengthy hospital stay or nursing home stay in a distant and, again, a strange location.

Our legislation also consolidates and coordinates the various tribal health programs into a more comprehensive approach. As we well know, alcohol and drug abuse among many of our Native communities, and methamphetamine abuse, has reached epidemic proportions in some communities.

We had a gentleman, the former chairman of the Northern Arapahoe, Mr. Richard Brannan. He testified before our joint hearing before the 109th Congress, and then again during the 110th, and told us truly a heart- breaking story of the tragic and painful and terrible unnecessary death of a beautiful little Indian girl at the hands of methamphetamine- addicted individuals.

Chairman Brannan sought our help in providing both prevention and treatment for the drug and alcohol addictions that ravage Native communities. I am pleased that this bill will authorize such assistance and more to help prevent these tragedies from happening to other Indian children.

Now, also during the committee hearing on the methamphetamine plague, we received testimony from tribal leaders about the devastation this terrible drug has brought to their communities. Kathleen Kitcheyan, the former tribal chairwoman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona, described a very personal loss, a tragic loss of a grandson to drugs. And she stated that on her reservation, they have methamphetamine users who are as young as 9 years old.

Think about what is happening to our children. Think about drug abuse and the addictions. But to know that children as young as 9 years old are being made the victims, we should all be alarmed when we hear stories like this. And what is equally horrifying are the residual effects of methamphetamine abuse on children. The former chairwoman testified how babies were being born on the reservation, born addicted to methamphetamine, with physical deformities. She stated that on her reservation a 22-year-old methamphetamine user tried to commit suicide by stabbing himself with a 10-inch knife. So many terrible stories. There were 101 suicide attempts on her reservation during the year 2004, 101 attempts that were directly related to meth.

Now, I have described that we are seeing methamphetamine users as young as 9, but it also afflicts the middle-aged as well as the elderly. Once meth has taken hold, few can escape without considerable help. The Indian Health Service estimates it takes well over 60 days in treatment programs in order to overcome these addictions. So just separating a methamphetamine addict from the drug for a period of a few weeks or even a month is not nearly enough to provide effective treatment, not nearly enough to break the addiction. The methamphetamine addicts need the long-term treatment necessary to allow their mental and their physical state to heal and to recover.

For the children, the IHS has 11 federally funded youth regional treatment centers with 300 beds overall. In addition, there are an estimated 47 or perhaps 48 tribal and urban residential programs for adults. One program, the Native American Rehabilitation Association in Portland, OR, which is an urban Indian facility, can also house the patient's family so the patient can also receive the very necessary family support during the recovery.

These programs authorized under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and more importantly the Indian and Alaska Natives who are suffering from meth addiction, will benefit from the updates to the behavioral health program in this bill.

Now, we heard from Chairman Dorgan that the Indian health system is funded at approximately 60 percent of the need. And with the new health hazards, whether it is methamphetamine or whatever the hazard is, that face our Native communities, we have to be innovative in finding solutions and resources in building upon the foundations that are set forth in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

This legislation will establish the Native American Wellness Foundation, a federally chartered foundation to facilitate mechanisms to support but not supplant the mission of the Indian Health Service. It is modeled after legislation which passed the Senate in the 108th Congress. I am pleased to say we will have an opportunity to advance it in this legislation as well.

I wish to mention two key provisions that have been briefly mentioned. This is regarding the issue of violence against Native women. In the substitute we hope to advance later, we will provide for authorization of prevention and treatment programs for Indian victims and the perpetrators of domestic and sexual violence. We will also provide critical incentives for Indian health providers to obtain certification and training as sexual assault nurse examiners or in other areas to serve victims of violence. Both these provisions build upon very important work this Congress did in the Violence Against Women Act, by addressing some of the systematic shortcomings to improve prosecutions, such as forensic examinations. I will speak on this a bit later.

One of the things we heard in testimony before the committee was that in many of our IHS facilities, they did not have rape kits available. They could not collect the forensic evidence. If you don't have the evidence, you cannot proceed with prosecution. When you hear stories such as this and ask for confirmation that, in fact, this is the situation, that we simply don't have the kits available--it is confirmed--it is no wonder women feel helpless in even seeking assistance after a violent act such as a rape. In addition, simply not having the training for the nurses at the clinics, these are areas of critical shortcomings and ways we can help to make a difference.

There are many good things in this bill, but I do wish to impress upon Members this is truly a national bill. It works to benefit Indians and Indian health programs in communities across the spectrum. I have mentioned that it has been a product that has been in the works for years, a very determined effort on the part of Native health leaders truly from all corners of our Nation. There are over 560 Indian tribes in this country, with 225 of those tribes in Alaska alone. Our Indian tribes and Indian health care system span the Nation from Maine to Florida, California to Washington, and, of course, to Alaska up North. According to recent information from IHS, over 1.6 million American Indians and Alaska Natives receive services in this system at over 600 facilities. These facilities are all over the board, in terms of what they can provide, ranging from inpatient hospitals, general clinics, and health stations.

There are some that look beautiful and there are some that you look at and say: We can do far better.

I mentioned earlier many Natives in the State travel into Anchorage from outlying areas to receive care at the Alaska Native Medical Center. As you can see behind me, it is a large, beautiful facility. It is designed to provide for that advanced level of care and specialty for Alaska Natives from around the entire State. But as one travels away from Anchorage, and you get off the road system out into the bush, the facilities vary in size and certainly in service and are certainly much more modest. We have a picture of the clinic in Atka, AK. It is a little rough around the edges, certainly, but they are able to provide for the basic needs in that region. I checked to identify some of the other challenges the folks in Atka face, in terms of their costs. This is a village where gas is selling for $5.09 a

gallon, and home heating oil is going for $4.99 a gallon.

We have a picture of the clinic at Arctic Village which is located more in the central or interior part of the State. I checked with them this weekend on the price of gas per gallon. It is 7 bucks a gallon. Their home heating oil costs are $6.36 a gallon. So it is expensive to live out there. It is expensive to heat your home. When you are ill or need help, this clinic is where you go in Arctic Village.

We know the need is extensive. The Indian health care system has to provide everything from basic medical to dental to vision services and medical support systems. It has to include the laboratory, nutrition, pharmaceutical, diagnostic imagining, medical records. Obviously, they are not providing that there at Arctic Village.

Senator Dorgan had mentioned the history of the Indian health care system. I will not take the time today to speak to that. I do, before taking a break, wish to take time to talk about some of the updates to the current Indian health care system we have in this legislation. As I mentioned, there have been enormous changes to the medical system since the last reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Act in 1992. So in order to update and provide for an improvement in the overall status of the American Indian and Alaska Native health and well-being, we have to make sure our facilities access is better.

Chairman Dorgan mentioned some of the health statistics and mortality rates we see among American Indians and Alaska Natives. We know these populations are dying at higher rates than others within the U.S. population. On tuberculosis, for American Indians and Alaska Natives the rate is 600 percent higher; alcoholism, 510 percent higher; diabetes, 229 percent higher; unintentional injuries, 152 percent higher; homicides, suicides higher. The statistics are all so troubling as we look to what we are providing and whether we are seeing improvement.

As I say that, we have seen some gains. With passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, there were some pieces of good news insofar as decreases in mortality rates over the past 35 years. The average death rate from all causes for the American Indian and Alaska Native population dropped 28 percent between 1974 and 2002. We have seen gastrointestinal disease mortality reduced. Even though the death rate for Indians is 600 percent higher than the rest of the United States, we have seen tuberculosis mortality reduced 80 percent, and cervical cancer mortality has been reduced. Infant mortality has been reduced 66 percent. We are seeing good news there. The problem is, we started at such high levels. So, the statistics are still unacceptable.

In addition, we have population growth and economic factors which are creating strong pressure on American Indian and Alaska Native communities and their health care facilities. From 1990 to 2000, the population grew at a rate of 26 percent among the American Indian and Alaska Native populations. Compared to the total U.S. population, it grew by 13 percent. But we know the health care funding for Native people simply has not kept up with the expanding population and inflation.

This effective reduction in health care funding creates our current health status level. We see the survival rate improving, but all we need to do is look at the charts, look at the statistics. We know Indians and Alaska Natives still suffer disproportionately from a number of health problems. We know, for instance, in the area of diabetes, the rates are unacceptably high. While we recognize the Indian Health Service is trying to get this diabetes crisis under control--they are providing diabetes care to greater numbers of Native people than ever before, and we see some success--is it adequate? Is it sufficient?

Another area where we are seeing some success is in the area of vaccinations. We are getting higher vaccination rates for adults over 65. These have been instrumental in helping with some of our health statistics. Screenings, such as for fetal alcohol syndrome, have been helping to reduce the burden of preventable disease.

One of the aspects we face in increasing efficiencies within the delivery of the health care system, we know we have to use new technologies, new techniques, and these are contemplated and outlined in many areas of the legislation before us. I will go back to Alaska as an example of a State that faces very unique challenges in providing for quality health care to the residents in rural Alaska. The majority of the 200 rural Alaska Native villages are not connected to a road system. We don't have the roads. We are 47 out of 50 in ranking of States for the number of road miles, but we rank first out of 50 for overall land mass. We simply don't have a road system to speak of in much of Alaska. When you don't have a road system, you fly. We fly in small bush planes. During the summer months, we rely on skiffs and riverboats to get around. But for the most part, we fly. It is not luxury travel. It is a basic need.

From the chart I have behind me, you can't see the names of all the towns there, but it is there to demonstrate what we deal with as a State. When you look at the IHS budget in Alaska, you may be surprised to see the travel budgets are unusually large, oftentimes larger than staff budgets. That gets people's attention. Are we going out to conferences? No. This is how we get around in the State of Alaska and how we move our patients, those who need to get to that medical specialist. We move them by airplane. Up in the north there you see a community of Barrow. Nuiqsut is a small village outside of Barrow. They have a small clinic. Barrow has a larger one. But in order to receive any level of specialty care, an Alaska Native would have to fly about 700 miles south to Anchorage to the Alaska Native Medical Center. The cost of that particular flight is $1,100 for that person coming out of Nuiqsut.

Over to the west, out on St. Lawrence Island, an individual who is ill in Savoonga and needs to come into Anchorage for medical care is going to pay about $1,000. This is round trip, not that that makes it any better.

Down south of Anchorage, off of Kodiak Island--and if you look at the red lines, it looks as if it must be much closer to Anchorage and therefore less costly--if you are coming from Old Harbor on Kodiak Island, your airfare is going to be about $1,350 round trip to get you to and from.

So when we factor in the budgets of doing business, travel costs are enormous. This is all about access. We also recognize it is not just the cost. Oftentimes during the winter--this time of year--travel is shut down completely. For some of our communities, because of weather conditions, fuel barges have not been able to get into the community, and they have had to fly fuel in to provide for the diesel generation that provides the power in these villages.

Whether it is the ice, the wind, the snow, oftentimes it is just too dangerous to make the trip into town. Blue Cross has estimated that it is 300 times more expensive to operate a hospital or a clinic in Alaska than it is in the continental United States. These are the expenses we deal with.

In the last 10 years, we have seen access to medical specialists and health care improve. Working with my colleague, Senator Stevens, we have seen a revolution in terms of how health care is delivered to our rural villages with the development of an advanced telehealth network. With 99 percent of the telehealth initiative coming from IHS funding and managed by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Care Consortium, the Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership is a collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Coast Guard. They teamed up together to develop the Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network. They developed a special telehealth cart, and they deploy these carts to small villages in rural Alaska. They are able to provide a very wide variety of clinical services, including cardiology, community health aid training, dental and oral health, dermatology, ear, nose and throat care, as well as emergency room services.

They had a demonstration cart here a couple years back to just kind of show us what it is they were doing. I had just come off a trip up north, and I was due to fly again very soon. My ears were all plugged up. I said: Well, show me how this works. Just standing right there, they put a little monitor in my ear, and they were talking to a doctor in Anchorage. He said: You just have a little inflammation there. You are fine to fly.

What we are able to do with telehealth is to connect many of our Alaska Natives in a very cost-effective way for them to have access to qualified health care specialists without necessarily leaving their village.

We continue to evaluate the cost savings we are seeing as a consequence of this telemedicine. The preliminary data suggests that 37 percent of the time, telemedicine prevented the need for a patient and family escort to travel. That saved an estimated $4.4 million in travel costs. So if you can save $4 million in travel, because we have the technology in front of us, it is a savings for all of us.

Tribal health providers in Alaska with their Federal counterparts have been extremely innovative in addressing the unique health care challenges of our State. The Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network has been working with the IHS service areas to expand quality and affordable health care to American Indians across the United States.

The new opportunities, such as expanded telehealth, found in S. 1200 serve important purposes in promoting good investments. Indian tribes and tribal organizations have performed admirably in developing their health care services and facilities. These types of efforts should be rewarded and encouraged by passage of this bill.

There are some other items I would like to speak to, and I may come back to them at another point in time. But before I conclude for now, I want to mention the importance of the program in the sanitation facilities area.

I could probably stand all day justifying the need for the reauthorization, but one area that has been demonstrated to be one of those very important functions in reducing health disparities is the Sanitation Facilities Program. This program governs the construction, operations, and maintenance of sanitation facilities providing clean water and sanitary disposal systems to Indian and Alaska Native communities.

For us in Alaska, the issue of sanitation is one we have been struggling with for far, far too many years. One in three families--one in three families--in rural Alaska has no sanitation facilities. We are not talking about upgraded sanitation facilities; we are saying no sanitation facilities. What we have in many of our villages, still, unfortunately, is a system we refer to as the honey-bucket system. It is not a very refined system. In fact, it is a system that, for those of us in the State, we look at with shame and say: For Alaska Natives, for Alaskans to have to rely on this as their sanitation system is offensive. It is close to Third World conditions, and here we are in the United States of America, and you have a system where human waste is collected in a bucket and hauled outside and dumped in a collection facility. In some areas, it is less than a collection area; it is dumped in a lagoon. You can walk through some of these communities, and you have waste that is spilled along the wayside.

I have in the Chamber this picture of these two little Native boys. It is like the equivalent of taking out the trash--taking out the honey bucket. If you do not think this does not contribute to some of our health issues in rural Alaska, you have not looked at the facts.

In testimony before the committee, we had Steven Weaver. He is from the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Steve Weaver has been very instrumental working with us in order to eliminate the honey bucket. But he spoke at that hearing to the challenges families face in communities without sanitation facilities. He said: Other folks in America have the convenience of running water and inside flushing toilets, but in too many of our Native communities we have to haul the clean water into the homes and then haul the honey buckets out of the homes as part of the household chores, part of the daily living.

I was in a community several years back and visited the health clinic there. It was a very small health clinic. It was one of the villages that still do not have running water. There was a honey bucket in the corner of the health clinic. When you think about the need for sanitation, particularly in your clinic, and you realize there is no running water and the human waste must be discarded by walking it out the door, the health consequences in communities without running water, without sewer are very real.

The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium reported that infants in communities without adequate sanitation are 11 times more likely to be hospitalized for respiratory infections in comparison to all U.S. infants and 5 times more likely to be hospitalized for skin infections than those in communities with adequate sanitation.

We have about 6,000 homes without potable water, about 18,650 homes that need improvements or upgrades for water, sewer, or solid waste.

This legislation, S. 1200, will maintain the Sanitation Facilities Program. For us in a State such as Alaska, this is vitally important.

Mr. President, at this time I am prepared to defer to Senator Gregg. He has been waiting some time. I do have additional comments I will make throughout the day, but I yield the floor at this time.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. President, if this were the first time that a 60-vote requirement were made, I would have some sympathy for the Senator from Illinois. I am having staff compile the number of times when the other side of the aisle was in the minority, they demanded 60 votes as well. You cannot do it with a straight face.

You cannot say that all we are going to do here in the Senate is have us govern by 51 votes; otherwise, we may as well be unicameral because we would have the Senate and the House exactly the same.

So, of course, I will object, Mr. President. I wish we would get off this horse of saying that somehow the other side never employed the 60- vote requirement in the Senate, because they did. It is a tradition in the Senate, and it is within the rules of the Senate. It may be frustrating. It certainly was to us when we were in the majority and the Democrats were in the minority and they employed it. But to somehow act as if what is being done is unprecedented--I will tell you what is unprecedented; it is taking a Defense authorization bill that is there for the training and equipping and pay raises and necessities of life for the men and women serving in the military, when we should be passing this--we all know it is going to come up in September. We should be passing this so the men and women can get what they need and deserve in order to defend the security of this Nation. Instead, Mr. President, what we are doing is having, again, for the eighth or ninth time, without having passed one appropriations bill, including the Military Construction appropriations bill, which is ready to be passed--instead, we will have this ``argument'' against the filibuster.

Mr. President, it doesn't pass the smell test. I object.

Mr. President, I am pleased to give that to the distinguished chairman.

The Senator from Nevada, the distinguished majority leader and my friend for many years, points out that in previous years, the Defense authorization bill was passed without requirements for a 60-vote majority. There is a simple answer to that. We never took up an issue such as this on the Defense authorization bill.

In fact, our focus and our attention was, for 45 years, providing men and women who are serving in the military with what they needed to defend this Nation. Instead--instead, of doing what is necessary, including the 3.5-percent pay raise, including the Wounded Warriors legislation on it to take care of our veterans--we are now gridlocked in the Senate because the Senator from Nevada knows he is not going to pass a withdrawal from Iraq on this bill. If he did, the President would veto the bill, because the President has said it. We all know that in September this issue is going to come to a head, whether I happen to favor that or not.

Most people believe that September is a time where we could make the kinds of judgments necessary to see whether we are making the kind of progress that will justify continued effort in this new strategy, which I, of course, would remind my colleagues again, the last part of which was put in place a few weeks ago.

Of course, we did not have requirements for 60-vote majorities in the past few years because no one had the temerity to put an issue such as this on the very vital needs of the men and women in the military to do their job. So, of course, there was not a controversial necessity for a 60-vote majority.

I am happy to tell my friend from Mississippi that Senator Levin and I are moving forward with clearing amendments so we can, we hope, wrap up this bill by the end of this week. I hope that once this display that is going to take place tonight, all night, is concluded, and there is not sufficient votes in order to get the Levin-Reed amendment passed, at some point we can go back to the Defense authorization bill and get them the 3.5 percent pay raise they have earned; get them that MRAP equipment that they need; get this Wounded Warrior legislation through the Senate and to the desk of the President of the United States.

We never grow tired, nor should we, of praising the men and women in the military, particularly those who have sacrificed so much. All of us are embarrassed and ashamed at what happened at Walter Reed. Well, let's pass this Wounded Warrior legislation on this bill and get it done.

Who is holding up passage of the Defense authorization bill? Who is requiring us to stay up all night to discuss it? My friends, this is not necessary. We all know that General Petraeus was affirmed in his position by the Senate by an overwhelming vote. General Petraeus, at the time of his hearings, said we were going to have a new strategy-- that strategy is called surge--and that it would require additional troops.

He also said at that time it would take time, that it would take a period of time before we would know whether it succeeded. Here we are, literally weeks after the last part of this new strategy is in place, the last detachment of an increase in troops, and we are telling them to set a date for withdrawal.

Now, you know, I share the frustration that my friend from Nevada stated about a failed policy. It was a failed policy. The Rumsfeld- Casey policy strategy was doomed to failure, and some of us recognized that and stated that at the time. We said we had to have a new strategy. It has to be the classic counterinsurgency strategy if we are going to succeed in Iraq.

Well, we got a new general. We got a new strategy. There are signs of success. There are clearly some signs of progress, and those are readily apparent. Now, is the Maliki Government acting in the way we want them to? No, they are not. Is it disappointing that they are not? Absolutely, it is disappointing.

But as far as Anbar Province is concerned, as far as some parts of Baghdad are concerned, yes, there is some progress which has been purchased at great and tragic cost, the sacrifice of young American's lives.

I would like to again assure my friend of many years, from Nevada, I understand the frustration that he shows is shared by many Americans. Our failure and our employment of a failed strategy for more than 3 years is well articulated. But I also would plead with my colleagues to at least know that we are not going to stop this now. We are not going stop it now. Even if the majority leader got the 60 votes and got this included in the bill in some way, the President of the United States would veto it. We do not want that to happen. We do not want that to happen.

We know that in September, whether I happen to like it or not--I would like to personally give it more time than September--we know that in September this whole issue is going to come to a head. Here we are in the middle of July. Can't we sit down and work out the amendments in a way that Senator Levin and I and Senator Warner and previous chairmen and ranking members have for the last 20 years, get this bill done, get it out and get it to the President's desk? Then we go into recess. We come back in September. I think that that is not an unreasonable path to follow.

So, my friends, we will continue to debate this issue all night tonight. I understand that. Hopefully, when the majority sees that, the leader sees there is not the votes, maybe we could then get down to the nuts and bolts of the Defense authorization bill of which at last count there are over 100 amendments pending that Members have on both sides of the aisle, they want to be considered and voted on.

I fear--I fear--that the majority leader, because of a lack of time, may feel it necessary to pull the bill from the floor. I think that would not be in any way helpful to our Nation's national security interests.

My friends, if we could lower the rhetoric around here a bit, let us sit down and talk about the best way to proceed, recognizing that September will be a very important point, and pass this authorization bill and not for

the first time in 45 years have us not do what we need to do for our Nation's security and the men and women who are serving.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was just given information by my staff. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Passed after a cloture vote and/or other 60-vote requirement in 2005, seven; passed after a cloture vote and/or a 60- vote requirement in 2006, 10; defeated by cloture or 60-vote requirement, also in 2006, 10.

It is clear that when the Senator from Illinois was in the minority, they used the 60-vote provision as well, and that is their right to do so. I don't in any way object to their having done that. I do object strenuously to somehow conveying the impression that this is a ``filibuster'' because we require 60 votes, that this is some Earth- shattering, precedent-shattering procedure. In fact, it is not. In fact, the Senator from Illinois knows very well that 60 votes is often required, whether it be a budget point of order or whether a cloture vote, and it has been used quite often by the minority as a tool to assert their rights as the minority. I understand that.

The Senator from Illinois talks about the bill that this has to be on. This is either the eighth or ninth time we have brought up Iraq. He didn't need the authorization bill to do it then. It is the right of the majority to bring up whatever they want, whenever they want. I can assure my colleagues, the Defense authorization bill will probably not be on the floor in September, and one thing I am pretty confident of is that we will be taking up the issue of Iraq in September. So to somehow say that this is appropriate, it is not appropriate because it is controversial, and we know it will not be passed with a provision that requires what the Senator from Illinois wants on it. It will never become law because the President will veto it in the unlikely--in fact, highly unlikely--situation where this bill was passed by both Houses of Congress.

What we are doing--have no doubt about it--is keeping the 3.5-percent pay raise from going into law. We are keeping the wounded warrior legislation from being enacted by both Houses and us acting as quickly as possible. The Senator from Illinois, I believe, and all other Senators voted on behalf of the nomination of General Petraeus in February, knowing full well what General Petraeus's strategy was. That was

very well articulated. So now we find ourselves some months later saying: Well, we have to end it.

The distinguished majority leader, who is no longer on the floor, declared the war lost. I was astonished. Because if we lost the war, then somebody won. Does that mean that al-Qaida has won the war? I don't think the 160,000 young men and women who are serving in Iraq, whom I visited about a week ago, think the war is lost. I don't think the majority of Americans do either. Are they frustrated by what has happened here? Of course, they are frustrated. They want to bring it to an end. But it is the obligation of people such as me to point out what happens when we withdraw in 120 days.

Literally, in the view of every expert on national security, we will pay a much heavier price in the long run. Chaos, genocide will ensue. Quite often I hear from the other side: What is plan B, if the surge doesn't work?

What is plan B if the withdrawal results in chaos and genocide in the region? According to most experts--including Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, General Zinni according to most people who have spent their lives on national security issues, it will be chaos and genocide. What is plan B there?

I hope after the show is over tomorrow morning sometime--and it is clear to all that we will not set a 120-day withdrawal date from Iraq on this legislation--we will then be able to sit down and move forward on the bill so that we can get it passed into law. That is what we should be doing. To somehow think that we have not required, as the majority leader on many occasions required, 60 votes for passage of an amendment or legislation, of course, flies in the face of the clear record which I have just asked to be printed in the Congressional Record.

America is now at a crossroads. America is now at a point where, according to Natan Sharansky:

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

bloodbath . . .

From Anthony Zinni, who was opposed to us going into Iraq:

. . . reality is that we simply cannot pull out [of Iraq],

as much as we may want to. The consequences of a destabilized

and chaotic Iraq, sitting in a critical region of the world,

could have catastrophic implications . . . there is no short-

term solution.

We have a system of government where the military is subordinate to the civilian leadership, and it should be. It is the most appropriate way. But to completely ignore, as apparently my friend from Illinois is, the leaders whom we have appointed to fight over there and do the dying and carry out the leadership responsibilities, to completely ignore their advice and counsel, they are on the ground. They know what is going on.

General Lynch, 3rd ID commander, says:

[pulling out before the mission was accomplished] would be a

mess.

By the way, these will be the guys who will be required to clean up the mess, if we pass this resolution and we have a mess.

Continuing from General Lynch:

. . . you'd find the enemy regaining ground, reestablishing

sanctuaries, building more IEDs . . . and the violence would

escalate.

I have already quoted before from Henry Kissinger.

General Lynch:

[our soldiers] want to fight terrorists here, so they don't

have to fight terrorists back home . . . I now have the

forces I need to conduct that mission.

General Lynch, the 3rd ID commander, says he has the troops and the wherewithal and the success to get the job done.

The Senator from Illinois wants to say, no, you have to come home in 120 days. I don't think that is right. I don't think General Lynch is reading any polls. I think General Lynch and General Petraeus are fighting an enemy that, according to them, they will be fighting here if we have a precipitous withdrawal.

General Lynch:

. . . surge forces are giving us the capability we have now

to take the fight to the enemy . . . the enemy only responds

to force, and we now have that force.

That is the force that the Senator from Illinois wants to withdraw within 120 days.

We can conduct detailed kinetic strikes, we can do cordon

and searches, and we can deny the enemy sanctuaries . . . If

those surge forces go away that capability goes away, and the

Iraqi security forces aren't ready yet to do that [mission].

Brent Scowcroft, who opposed our entry into the Iraq conflict:

[reduction of American presence in Iraq] should follow

success in our efforts, not the calendar or the performance

of others.

I hope that sometime my friends who were involved in this debate will listen to the people we have delegated to lead the best Armed Forces in the history of mankind who are doing one of the most difficult jobs in history.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

The Senator from Illinois--and this is growing a little wearisome, it really is. The fact is, 60 votes have been invoked by the minority time after time after time, whether it be a district judge or an appellate court judge, or most any other issue that is controversial. The Senator from Illinois knows that, and that is why it is very disappointing to see him using this kind of rhetoric when he is willing to have 60 votes be required for some judge but somehow feels-- which they did invoke when they were in the minority--and yet feels that it is not appropriate to have 60 votes on an issue of this importance.

The Senator from Illinois talks about beginning the withdrawal in 120 days, beginning the withdrawal in 120 days. The day that is signed into law would be the day--would be the day, in the view of every military expert, that al-Qaida would sit back and wait until we left.

The Senator from Illinois continues to call it a civil war. There is sectarian violence. There is very little doubt in the minds--of course, perhaps the Senator from Illinois and others know more than literally every expert I know. It has become, in the words of General Petraeus, a center for al-Qaida and a central front in the war on terror, according to our leading generals.

Now, I resent a little bit this comment by the Senator from Illinois about he has heard the generals before. I heard the generals before, and I disagreed with the generals, and that is our right to do. But to denigrate their opinion I don't think is appropriate to people who spend their lives in the service of the military, defending this Nation. General Petraeus, it is my understanding, has been wounded three times in different wars fighting for this Nation. I think he deserves respect rather than being dismissed by saying: Well, I have heard the generals say that before. We should pay attention to the generals. We should have paid attention to the generals at other times in our history, including those who disagreed with the former Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld.

Again, I repeat, since we seem to be going in a certain circularity, conditions in Iraq today are terrible, but they become way worse as the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, a career foreign service officer, recently told the New York Times. I am quoting from the Washington Post editorial of just a few days ago:

The generals who have devised--

The generals whom the Senator from Illinois derides--

The generals who have devised a new strategy believe they

are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the

Iraqi Army, and encouraging anti-al-Qaida coalitions. Before

Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering

withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the

months they ask for to see whether their strategy can offer

some new hope.

Why do you think the Washington Post and literally most every national security expert feels that this ought to be given an opportunity, remembering that the last part of it has just been put in place a short time ago? Because the consequences of failure, as I have just quoted from many military experts, are a catastrophe.

General Lynch says:

What the Iraqis are worried about is our leaving. And our

answer is: We are staying, because my order from the Corps

Commander is that we don't leave the battle space until we

can hand over to the Iraqi security forces. Everybody wants

things to happen overnight, and that is not going to happen.

So when the amendment of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan is passed, then the word is spread and General Lynch can no longer say to the Iraqis we are staying, because we will be leaving.

General Odierno says:

My assessment right now is, I need more time to understand

how the current offensive targeting al-Qaida and Iraq

terrorists is working and how it could lead to political

progress in the months ahead.

Odierno said:

I am seeing some progress now here in Iraq. We have really

just started what the Iraqis term ``liberating'' them from

al-Qaida. What I've got to determine is what do I need in

order to continue that progress so that the political peace

can take hold and Iraqi sources can hold this for the long

term.

I want to point out to my colleagues that I am not guaranteeing success. I wish it had gone better. I think there are areas, particularly as far as the government is concerned, where dramatic improvement has to take place. But I do know the consequences of failure, and that view of setting a date for withdrawal is a clear recipe for a much larger conflict with much greater involvement in the region over time.

So when the Senator from Illinois and my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about how this won't be withdrawal if this is passed, I say: My friends, this is withdrawal. This is the message to those people who have to remain in the neighborhood: We are leaving and you are going to have to make adjustments to the neighborhood and the new big guys on the block.

Again, I wish we could take up this issue in September. I wish we could pass the necessary legislation to care for the men and women who are wounded. I wish we could pass the necessary legislation in order to take care of the needs of the men and women in the military. If we pass this bill this week--I tell my colleagues we are going to be going into the August recess. We will be coming back in September with probably a very contentious conference with the House. The chances right now of us getting final passage and the President's signature on this bill by the first of October is not good. So the sooner we get this bill off the floor and to the President, the better off we are going to be.

I certainly hope we will take into consideration the great needs that are existing in the military today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, yesterday a man whom I had the opportunity of meeting and knowing a little bit, British Army Lieutenant General Jim Lamb--General Lamb is the Deputy Commander of Multinational Forces Iraq and senior British military representative in Iraq--was asked by Jamie McIntyre of CNN about how ``the growing sentiment in our Congress to bring U.S. troops home sooner'' affected the mood of his troops deployed in Iraq, meaning the British troops. Lieutenant General Lamb responded that those troops find it ``a touch difficult.'' I think that is a very interesting phrase, ``a touch difficult,'' because while it is so clear to them that we are making progress, it is not reflected by those who are not in the fight but are sitting back and making judgment upon what they, the troops, can see with absolute clarity.

Lieutenant General Lamb noted that those making such judgments and not taking note of the progress ``are not going out every day in a humvee.'' Moreover, he further noted that the progress the troops see is seldom reported. They see provincial counselors,

they see water going to people who didn't have it before, they see electricity coming online, they see stability to the networks. They see all this stuff that no one portrays.

I say to my friend from Michigan and the Senator from Illinois and others, I hope they pay a little attention to General Lamb's statement or reject it out of hand, of course, as apparently is being done.

I have to repeat, General Lamb responded that his troops find it ``a touch difficult.'' While it is so clear to them we are making progress, it is not reflected by those who are not in the fight but are sitting back and making judgment upon what they, the troops, can see with absolute clarity.

I don't think I have to editorialize anymore on General Lamb's, I think, totally accurate statements.

The New York Post reported on July 10 an interview with General Petraeus. He is asked by Ralph Peters, a person for whom I have enormous respect:

The current military operations in Iraq appear

comprehensive and tenacious, part of a long-term, integrated

plan. What can we realistically expect to achieve?

Petraeus: Our primary goal is to work with our Iraqi

counterparts to improve security for the Iraqi people. This

is intended to give the Iraqi leaders the time to resolve the

tough political issues they face and to pursue internal

reconciliation.

He goes on to say:

As to reasonable expectations, we can expect a reduction in

sectarian deaths and the gradual spread of Iraqi government

authority. The level of sectarian deaths in Baghdad in June

was the lowest in about a year. Nevertheless, the extremists

still have been able to carry out car bomb and other attacks.

Wherever we operate, we try to reconnect Iraqi ministries

and local governments to meet the needs of the people.

Finally, we provide opportunities for Iraqis to use their

local knowledge to help root out al Qaeda. Successful

operations of this nature have played out in recent months in

Ramadi, Hit and Baquba. In each case, Iraqis turned against

al Qaeda and sided with the Coalition.

Question:

Now that the surge is fully in place, what's your sense of

the positives and negatives thus far? If you could have more

of any one item, what would it be? Troops? Time? Iraqi unity?

General Petraeus's answer:

I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have

wanted more troops, more time or more unity among their

partners; however, if I could only have one at this point in

Iraq, it would be more time.

I repeat, General Petraeus said:

. . . if I could only have one at this point in Iraq, it

would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor

that faces countless challenges.

So what does the Levin-Reed amendment do? Deny General Petraeus exactly that. As Senator Levin points out in his statement, the announced withdrawal would force the Iraqi Government to act and, therefore, then we would see progress. What if, I say to my colleagues who support this amendment, what if instead the situation deteriorates into a chaotic situation, then what do we do? Then what do we do if the situation gets worse? Do we come back in? Do we sit on the sidelines and watch another genocide? What if, I say to my colleague who often asks me what is plan B, the surge doesn't work? What is plan B if the withdrawal doesn't work?

I don't think that most people would believe that an international mediator is exactly a solution that is viable.

I wish to talk a minute about the region. Finally, after our stunning military victory and shock and awe and the invasion side of the conflict was over, America was in pretty good shape in the region. The Syrians were trying to be cooperative. There were efforts on the part of the Iranians to join with us in efforts to bring about an end to terrorism in the region. Then we began to fail, and that failure has, obviously, been chronicled in many books. I recommend to my colleagues the book ``Fiasco'' or ``Cobra II'' or a number of other books that have been written that describe the failed Rumsfeld strategy. We paid a very heavy price for it. All of us know that. It has been the sacrifice of our most precious asset.

What has happened since? We find the Syrians continuing to intervene in northern Lebanon. We find the Syrians, according to many experts, transporting suicide bombers through the airport in Damascus into Iraq. We find the Iranians not only orchestrating attacks and providing intelligence and even money and funding, in some cases, but there is clear and compelling evidence that the IEDs, the most lethal IEDs are exported from Iran into Iraq, those that have the lethality even of going through the armor of a tank. We find the Iranians more aggressive in the region with Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The Syrians continue to try to unsettle the Government of Lebanon, and the Government of Lebanon is having great difficulties.

There is a U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. There has been no effort whatsoever to achieve the goals set forth in that U.N. Security Council resolution. In fact, there is strong evidence that Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is being resupplied with the rockets they expended in their latest attack on Israel which provoked an attack on Israel. We find the Saudis becoming more and more uneasy. We once had a report-- that fortunately turned out to be false--that the Turks had crossed over into the Kurdish areas because of Kurdish insurgents who are operating out of the Turkish areas, at least according to the Turks. So we have seen, because of our failure in Iraq, more strife, more conflict, and more threats to the State of Israel.

Meanwhile, the Iranians continue on the path to develop nuclear weapons. A great fear of many of us is not a nuclear weapon aimed at Israel from Iran. One of our great fears is a nuclear weapon passed to a terrorist organization by the Iranian Government, which has stated through its President and its policies their dedication to the extinction of the State of Israel. I could argue that the State of Israel is probably in more jeopardy from a national security standpoint than at any time in its history, since that very young nation achieved its independence.

So what happens in the region when we adopt the Levin-Reed resolution, and the signal is sent throughout the region ``don't worry, the Americans are leaving.'' I think the consequences are fairly obvious. So we are not just talking about Iraq, as serious and consequential as that situation is. We are talking about the region. It is hard for me to believe the Sunnis would not intervene to protect Sunnis if there is a bloodletting in Baghdad, where 2 million Sunni reside and 4 million Shia. But according to the premise of the Levin- Reed amendment, this will force the Iraqi Government to act and to control their own destiny.

My question is: What do we do if they can't? What do we do if they can't?

Some of my colleagues have talked about this ``gradual withdrawal.'' A gradual withdrawal. I think most military experts would tell you that the most difficult operation in military tactics and strategy is a ``gradual withdrawal.'' It is fraught with difficulty. When an army is defeated, and an army tries to come home, it is the most difficult of all military operations.

So I think that as we discuss this specific amendment and the issue of whether we stay or go in Iraq, whether we allow the new strategy of General Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff a chance to succeed, which calls for a surge in Iraq, while we debate this, I don't think we should ignore the larger implications for the region. I believe, and I cannot absolutely predict the future, but a failure in Iraq, according to most experts, would lead to a chaotic and unsettled situation in the region.

So I would at least ask for my colleagues' consideration of an article by Stephen Biddle in the Washington Post on July 11, entitled ``Iraq: Go Deep or Get Out.'' I think perhaps we ought to start looking at this situation from that respect. Mr. Biddle, in his piece, says:

The result has been a search for some kind of politically

moderate ``Plan B'' that would split the difference between

surge and withdrawal.

I think that adequately describes the Reed-Levin amendment.

The problem is that these politics do not fit the military

reality of Iraq. Many would like to reduce the U.S.

commitment to something like half of today's troop presence

there. But it is much harder to find a mission for the

remaining 60,000 to 80,000 soldiers that makes any sense

militarily.

Perhaps the most popular centrist option today is drawn

from the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendations of last

December. This would withdraw U.S. combat brigades, shift the

American mission from one of training and supporting the

Iraqi security forces, and cut total U.S. troop levels in the

country by about half. This idea is at the heart of the

proposed legislative effort that Domenici threw his support

behind last week, and support is growing on both sides of the

aisle on Capitol Hill.

The politics make sense, but the compromise leaves us with an untenable military mission. Without a major U.S. combat effort to keep the violence down, the American training effort would face challenges even bigger than those our troops are confronting today. An ineffective training effort would leave tens of thousands of American trainers, advisers, and supporting troops exposed to that violence in the meantime. The net result is likely to be continued U.S. casualties with little positive effect on Iraq's ongoing civil war.

It is unrealistic to expect that we can pull back to some

safe yet productive mission of training but not fighting--

this would be neither safe nor productive.

So, Madam President, I think we ought to look at what we are discussing here not only from the standpoint of Iraq but the implications for our presence in the region. And I will say something that is very seldom stated on the floor of the Senate: as long as we are dependent on oil in the region, our greater national security interests are at stake in what happens with the outcome of Iraq. The possibility of success in Iraq, of seeing the world's third largest oil reserves being modernized and used, and those revenues used for the betterment of the American people, also presents a goal that I think is worth striving for.

I would like to again return to the fact that I am deeply disappointed in the Maliki government. Their failure to act unhinges the very important aspect of the military, political, social, and economic aspects of any successful counterinsurgency operation. But I also believe that nothing would embolden the Iranians more, nothing would embolden the Syrians more, nothing would frighten the Jordanians and the Saudis more, not to mention the Egyptians, than the passage of legislation which would require the withdrawal of the United States.

So I urge my colleagues not only to look at how this legislation and this debate affects America vis-a-vis Iraq but affects our western and national interests and values in the entire Middle East.

Madam President, I note the patience of my friend from Rhode Island, who is a thoughtful and valued member of the Armed Services Committee whose friendship I appreciate a great deal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a short colloquy with my colleague from Michigan, the distinguished chairman.

I say to my colleague that we have one individual, and we do have some 26 amendments that I think are cleared that we could get out of the way. I am working on that right now. I thank my colleague and most of all the staffs for their close cooperation.

Reserving the right to object.

I ask my colleague, does that mean we will be voting after the recognition of the majority leader?

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I think everybody in this body would like to leave Iraq better than we found it. That is not the current situation. The current situation is chaos and violence in Iraq. It is an Iraq that is torn apart by sectarian violence. When you have group slaughtering group in a civil war, a sectarian type of war, it requires that the Iraqi political leaders take action to end the violence. The only way to end the violence is if the Iraqi political leaders will reach a political settlement. I think almost everybody agrees with that. I think our uniformed military agrees with that, our civilian leaders agree, and almost everybody agrees that there is no military solution in Iraq, and that the only solution, the only way to end this violence is if the Iraqi political leaders accept the responsibility to work out political agreements on a number of disagreements they have identified for themselves.

We talk a lot about benchmarks, and the President said the other day that on eight benchmarks we are making progress, and on eight we are not--to make it sound like we have a glass that is half full. But that is not what the facts sustain or support. The facts are that we have a glass called Iraq which has a hole in the bottom. Whatever we pour into Iraq goes right through that hole. It is going to continue to do that until one thing happens, and that is that the Iraqi political leaders decide they are going to work out a political settlement. There is a consensus about that, I believe, among almost all of us.

The Iraqi Prime Minister made the following statement, and every one of us, when we vote on Levin-Reed, ought to keep this one statement in mind, I believe, first and foremost. This is what Prime Minister Maliki said:

The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the

cycle of bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.

Well, it is long overdue that the politicians in Iraq step up to their responsibility. The amendment before us, it seems to me, states something which is clear. I believe it is obvious that it is in everyone's interest that Iraq not be a failed state. I agree with my friend from Texas. That should be a goal of everybody. The problem is that Iraq is the No. 2 most unstable state in the world right now. That is the status quo. That is what we have to end. The only way to end it is with a political settlement by the Iraqis.

There was an article a few days ago in Foreign Policy magazine called ``The States That Fail Us.'' It is about failed states. It has a list of about 60 states, and they give all of the indicators of instability. Iraq is No. 2 on the list, right after Sudan. That is the status quo. That is what we are trying to end--the failure of a policy in Iraq which has led the Iraqi leaders to believe that there is an open-ended commitment on the part of the United States to give them protection in that green zone to the extent that it exists. It is that open-ended commitment of the United States that must end--if we are going to prod the Iraqi leaders to finally step up, look into the abyss and make a decision, do they want a civil war or do they want a nation?

Mr. President, we cannot save them from themselves. To say that we don't want a failed state in Iraq is to say we don't want the status quo to continue, that the course must change in Iraq.

So I will vote for the Cornyn amendment because I think it states, in general terms at least, what I hope Members of the Senate would all agree on--that a failed state in Iraq is not in the interest of this Nation.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I need Senator McCain to listen. Apparently, the time the Senator from Arizona took on his reservation came out of our time, and I am wondering if he would give us a minute.

Mr. President, on the question of the 60 votes, there is a procedural roadblock which is being placed here. It is not the first time in history, of course, but a decision has to be made here whether the verdict of the American people last November that there be a change in policy is going to be thwarted by that procedural roadblock, and the Republican leader has apparently decided it will be.

In terms of precedent, last year on the Defense authorization bill, there

were at least two votes on Iraq, both majority votes. That is the precedent. Last year, there was a Levin-Reed amendment that received 39 votes and a Kerry amendment, both on Iraq on the Defense authorization bill, the most recent experience. This issue is so vital. It is so much in the minds of the American people that we should not throw up procedural roadblocks to allowing the Senate to vote. That is why we have asked that we be allowed to vote up or down on this amendment, and that apparently has now been objected to.

Madam President, tomorrow's vote in the Senate is not a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. It is a vote on whether the Senate will allow us to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. It is a vote on whether the Senate will break a filibuster so that the Senate can express its will, which I think is totally clear and reflects the will of the American people as expressed last November.

A change in course in Iraq is critical for our national security. If you think the present course is working, if you think we are making progress, as the President has said month after month, year after year, then presumably you are going to vote against the Levin-Reed amendment--if we can ever get to a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. But if you believe that changing course is the only hope of success in Iraq, that forcing the political leaders of Iraq to accept responsibility for their nation and to work out the political settlements that could prevent this violence from continuing and lead to the ultimate success in Iraq, and if we can get to the Levin-Reed amendment and break the filibuster, then you will be voting yes.

Madam President, it has been more than 4 years since the United States invaded Iraq. Despite a military victory that toppled Saddam Hussein and routed his army, Iraq soon became victim to a Sunni insurgency, to Shiite militias bent on revenge, and became victim to an incursion of al-Qaida terrorists whose actions were aimed and are aimed at promoting an Iraqi civil war.

As the situation on the ground has shifted, so has President Bush's rationale for our involvement. He took us into Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. When no weapons of mass destruction were found, the President said we needed to create a democracy in Iraq. Now the President says we must stay on to fight al- Qaida.

The President had a pre-surge strategy, a surge strategy, and now he has offered a post-surge strategy. What has remained constant in all of these strategies is one thing: They all have an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces in the middle of Iraq's civil war.

That open-ended commitment of a Muslim country by the West has played right into the hands of al-Qaida. Indeed, the intelligence community is recently reported to have concluded that the years of our occupation of Iraq have seen a surge of al-Qaida in Iraq.

It has come at a staggering cost--the loss of more than 3,600 of America's best and bravest, seven times that many wounded, and a price of $10 billion each month. In spite of the heroic efforts of the U.S. service men and women, chaos and destruction have deepened in Iraq.

Yet, month after month, year after year, the President has touted progress in Iraq and called for patience. It has been a litany of delusion. Just listen to President Bush's repeated claims of progress.

In October of 2003, President Bush said:

We are making progress about improving the lives of the

people there in Iraq.

On September 25, 2004, the President said:

We're making steady progress in implementing our five-step

plan toward the goal we all want: completing the mission so

that Iraq is stable and self-governing, and American troops

can come home. . . .

On April 28, 2005, the President said:

I believe we're really making progress in Iraq. . . .

On October 28, 2005, the President said:

Iraq has made incredible political progress. . . .

On November 14, 2005, the President said:

Iraqis are making inspiring progress toward building a

democracy.

On May 25, 2006, the President said:

We are making progress on all fronts.

On March 19, 2007, the President said:

There has been good progress.

The exaggeration and the hype continues to this day. On June 28, a few weeks ago, the White House press release stated:

The Iraqi security forces are growing in number, becoming

more capable, and coming closer to the day when they can

assume responsibility for defending their own country.

But in the benchmark assessment report released last week we read:

There has been a slight reduction in units assessed as

capable of independent operations since January 2007.

That is referring to Iraqi units. Even that turned out to be an exaggeration. Just 2 days later, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, told the press that the number of Iraqi Army brigades that were capable of independent operations had fallen from 10 to 6--quite a difference from a ``slight reduction.''

Madam President, one merely has to take note of recent incidents in Iraq as reported in our newspapers to know that things are not going well in Iraq and that the administration's assessments of progress have been consistently overblown through the years and continue to be overblown.

Consider the headline in USA Today on July 12: ``Iraqi police assist gunmen.'' The story described our Army investigation into a January attack in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers. Our investigation concluded that the Iraqi police who were supposed to be partners with American troops colluded with insurgents.

Then there was this story in the New York Times on July 14: ``U.S. Troops Battle Iraqi Police in East Baghdad.'' Those are the police who are supposed to be on our side trying to quell the violence in Baghdad, not attacking American troops.

On the all-important area of political benchmarks, consider this headline from the Financial Times of June 18: ``U.S. Military Frustrated at Lack of Iraqi Reconciliation.'' The story reports that General Petraeus said there has not been any ``real substantial achievements in terms of political reform in progress.''

Reuters reported on June 18 that Iraq was ranked the second most unstable country in the world behind Sudan in the 2007 Failed States Index, produced by Foreign Policy magazine. Failed state? Obviously, we don't want Iraq to be left as a failed state. It is failing. It is on a failing course. If we don't change that course, it is going to continue to descend into that failed status.

The administration's recent self-assessment of benchmarks that there is progress on 8 of the 18 benchmarks would have us believe that the cup in Iraq is half full rather than being half empty. Eight of eighteen--that sounds pretty good, like progress. But as a matter of fact, Iraq is a cup with a hole in its bottom. We keep pouring in our men and women and resources, and there is a hole in the bottom of that cup through which they go.

It is that Iraqi hole that Secretary Gates addressed on June 14 in Baghdad when he said the message he was delivering to the Iraqi people was that ``our troops are buying them time to pursue reconciliation and that, frankly, we are disappointed in the progress thus far.'' Secretary Gates was accurate in saying that ``our troops are buying [the Iraqis] time to pursue reconciliation.'' But what he left unsaid is that our troops and our Nation have paid, and continue to pay, far too high a price to give the Iraqis that opportunity, and the time is long past due for the Iraqi political leaders to accept responsibility for their own future.

Secretary Gates' statement that we are ``disappointed in the progress'' was surely an immense understatement. The American people are downright incensed at the failure of the Iraqi leaders.

Everybody agrees there is no military solution in Iraq and that the only way to end the violence is for the Iraqi political leaders to settle their differences. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki acknowledged that last November when he said--and these words should be seared, I believe, into the consciousness of each of us as we vote, if we are ever allowed to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. Here is what he said:

The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the

cycle of . . . bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi]

politicians.

Our service men and women are dying and being wounded while Iraqi leaders dawdle. The Iraqis themselves made commitments to share resources and power, amend their constitution, hold provincial elections, and take over responsibility for their own security in many more places than they have. They made the commitments last year in writing, but they have not kept them.

Secretary of State Rice recently confirmed in a letter to me that Iraqi leaders themselves, including their Presidency Council, had approved those benchmarks and the associated timeline. Secretary Rice wrote me:

We have confirmed with Iraqi President Talabani's chief of

staff that the benchmarks were formally approved last fall by

the Iraqi political committee on national security. This

committee includes the presidency council, the President, and

the two vice presidents, as well as the leaders of all the

major political blocs in Iraq.

Well, the Iraqi leaders' record on meeting the political timelines, which they approved themselves with a timeline, is abysmal.

For example, they said they would approve provincial elections and set a date for those elections by October of 2006. That has not been accomplished. They didn't do what they promised they would do.

The Iraqi political leaders said they would approve the hydrocarbon law by October 2006. That was not done. That has not been accomplished. They didn't do what they said they would do. The Iraqi leaders said they would approve a debaathification law by November 2006. They didn't do what they promised to do. The Iraqi political leaders said the Constitutional Review Committee would complete its work by January 2007 and hold a constitutional amendment referendum by March of this year. They did not do what they promised they would do.

This is not us imposing our benchmarks on them, this is the Iraqi political leaders who adopted their benchmarks, and have not met them.

I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Rice and her response be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Madam President, while our troops have done everything, and more, of what has been asked of them, while they have risked their all and given their all, the Iraqi political leaders remain frozen by their own history, unwilling to take the political risks that only they can take.

If there is any hope of forcing the Iraqi political leaders to take responsibility for their own country and to keep the commitments they made to meet the political benchmarks that they set and to make the compromises that only they can make, it is to have a timetable to begin reducing American forces and to redeploy those forces to a more limited support mission instead of being everybody's target in the middle of a civil war.

We need to send a clear message to the Iraqi leaders that we will not be in Iraq indefinitely, that we will not be their security blanket forever. That is what the Levin-Reed amendment would do if we are allowed to vote on it. Our amendment would require the President to begin reducing the number of American troops in Iraq within 4 months of enactment.

It would require transitioning the mission of our remaining military forces to force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and targeted counterterrorism missions. Our amendment would require that the transition to those limited missions be completed by April 30 of next year. Finally, and importantly, it would call for a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy, including sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and seeking an appointment of an international mediator under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council in order to try to bring stability to Iraq.

Some have criticized our amendment because it contains a timeline for the completion of the transition to new missions. We received similar criticism in the past about the timeline for the commencement of the transition. Timelines need to be established as the only way to force a change of course in Iraq and to force the Iraqis to accept responsibility for their own future. It is human nature to put off difficult decisions. Passage of our amendment would serve as a forcing mechanism and serve to stimulate action by the Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement.

Delaying action until the receipt of the administration's plan in September would only delay the time when Congress applies the needed pressure. There is no indication that Iraqi political leaders will compromise without our pressure. Indeed, there is every indication they will not. As Secretary Gates stated in April:

Debate in Congress . . . has been helpful in demonstrating

to the Iraqis that American patience is limited . . . The

debate itself and . . . the strong feelings expressed in the

Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive

effect in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is

not an open-ended commitment.

There is no indication the administration is willing to change course. For years, they have deluded themselves and the Nation with claims of progress while Iraqis descended into sectarian violence and chaos. On July 4, President Bush repeated his call for patience which he has made so many times over the years.

After more than 4 years, over 3,600 U.S. deaths, seven times that many wounded, and expenditures of $10 billion a month that we are borrowing from the future to finance this war in Iraq, the President's pleas for patience not only have a hollow ring, it is exactly the wrong message to the Iraqi leaders. Our message should be we are out of patience, and the refusal of the Iraqi leaders to work out their political differences is something which is no longer acceptable.

Congress attempted to respond to last November's election with a vote that we made on April 26. We adopted a bill that did provide a timetable to begin the reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq, the beginning of a phased troop reduction, redeployment in no more than 120 days, and a transition to a more limited mission focusing on counterterrorism, force protection, and training and logistical support for the Iraqi Army. President Bush vetoed our bill shortly thereafter.

Senator McConnell made a statement which was, I believe, very direct and very accurate, when he assessed not too long ago that ``the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall.'' That Presidential veto does not wash away the handwriting on the wall. It only makes the handwriting clearer and firmer that there is going to be a change of direction in Iraq.

So the question is: Why wait? Why not decide on a change of course now to save months of lost and wounded lives and huge additional expenditure of funds?

The clearer the handwriting on the wall is to the Iraqi political leaders and the quicker they read it and accept it, the greater the prospect for political settlement.

The clearer the handwriting on the wall is that the open-ended commitment of President Bush is over, not just rhetorically but in reality, the greater chance that an even wider civil war can be avoided.

There are some who acknowledge that a change of course is needed in Iraq, including U.S. troop reductions but who then say not now. But surely time is not working for us in Iraq. The sooner we shift strategy to force Iraqis to take responsibility, the better.

If we wish to improve the chance of a positive report on political progress in September, we need to put great pressure on Iraqi political leaders in July. We cannot and must not continue to have the lives of American servicemembers held hostage to Iraqi political intrigue and intransigence.

If we can get to the Levin-Reed amendment, if we can overcome the filibuster, and if we can adopt the Levin-Reed amendment which provides for the beginning of the reduction of our forces in Iraq in 120 days and transitioning to more limited missions, no more than 120 days after enactment, if we can adopt an amendment which says we will complete that transition by April 30, 2008, if we can adopt our amendment which provides for the appointment of an international mediator under U.N. auspices, we believe we will have passed the best chance of success in Iraq, and we will have adopted the only course of action which has a chance of pressuring the Iraqi leaders to do what only they can do.

The clock is ticking. We are losing more American lives and more American resources every day we delay. The time has come to set deadlines, to reduce our forces in Iraq, to transition to the new limited missions, and to embark on a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy to bring stability to Iraq.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2007.

Hon. Condoleezza Rice,

Secretary of State,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Secretary: I am writing in connection with your

letter of January 20, 2007 in which you advised me regarding

a set of benchmarks that the Government of Iraq has set for

itself.

You wrote that ``Iraq's Policy Committee on National

Security agreed upon a set of political, security, and

economic benchmarks and an associated timeline in September

2006. These were reaffirmed by the Presidency Council on

October 16, 2006, and referenced by the Iraq Study Group; the

relevant document (enclosed) was posted at that time on the

President of Iraq's website.''

Yesterday, I met with Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Prime Minister

Maliki's national security adviser. During the course of our

meeting, Dr. Rubaie stated that the Presidency Council never

reaffirmed the benchmarks. He was adamant on this point even

after I showed him the statement in your letter.

This is an important point as the Presidency Council, whose

three members, President Jalal Talabani (Kurd), Deputy

President `Adil `Abd al-Mahdi (Shia Muslim) and Deputy

President Tariq al-Hashimi (Sunni Muslim), are elected by the

Council of Representatives and represent the three major

ethnic groups of the country.

Earlier today, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack

stated ``These are the benchmarks that they've laid out for

themselves. We didn't come up with them. They came up with

them. And they need to be seen in the eyes of the Iraqi

people as delivering for the Iraqi people.''

It seems to me that it would make a difference if the

benchmarks and associated timeline were only approved by an

advisory group as compared to the Presidency Council.

Accordingly, please confirm that the benchmarks and

associated timeline, which you attached to your January 30,

2007 letter, were reaffirmed by the Presidency Council after

being agreed upon by the Policy Committee on National

Security, as stated in your letter.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin,

Chairman.

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

Mr. President, I understand our staffs have reached a point where we were able to clear something like 26 amendments on this bill but that there is one last hurdle on the Republican side. I am wondering whether my good friend from Arizona feels there may be a possibility that we can jump over that hurdle in the next couple hours.

I thank my friend.

I understand the Senator from Nebraska wants the floor, and I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator will repeat that.

Objection.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Maryland finishes her remarks, then on the Republican side, I understand Senator Warner will be the next speaker, and then that Senator Schumer be recognized on our side.

I thank my friend from Maryland.

If I can respond to my good friend's question.

We know what we hope will happen, and there are some things we can predict that will happen.

What do we know? We know that Iraq is in chaos. We know that the Iraqi President, or Prime Minister more accurately, has said the only way to end the bloodletting of innocents in Iraq is if the Iraqi leaders reach a political settlement. We know that. We know there is no military solution in Iraq. We know there is only a political solution and that the violence cannot end unless Iraqi leaders reach a political settlement.

I think those are consensus points. Those are things we know. We know how many of our troops have been killed and how many are killed every

month and how many are wounded and come home. We know those things.

Then the question is: Since there is no military solution, there is only a political solution--that is the only hope of succeeding in Iraq--how do you promote a political settlement in Iraq? Is the current course we are on succeeding or do we need to change the course?

We all have the same goal. We all want to maximize the chances of success in Iraq. If you believe we are succeeding in Iraq now, then you vote to stay the course. If you believe after all these years and all these deaths and all these wounded and all these expenditures, now over $10 billion a month, that we need to change course because we are not succeeding in Iraq, you have to ask yourself: How do we change course? How do we change what is going on in Iraq?

So those are the things that we, each of us, I think in our own conscience, are trying to figure what is the best way to maximize the chances of success in Iraq. I believe the only hope in getting the Iraqi leaders to reach the political settlement, which everybody agrees is the only hope, is to force them to accept responsibility for their own nation, to work out the political differences on revenue-sharing, on elections, on debaathification amendments, and on constitutional changes.

They have been dithering for years. They made a promise to their people, to the American people, and to the world last year. It is on their Web site, 16 of their benchmarks--not ours, their benchmarks. They have not carried out the commitments they have made. There was a timetable attached to those benchmarks. I put that timetable in the Record. It was part of a letter that Secretary Rice sent to me.

So we have a situation--

They are different.

Some are the same, some are different, but they are political benchmarks which the Iraqi leaders said they would meet. They made those benchmarks. We didn't impose them, those are their benchmarks. The letter from Secretary Rice makes it explicit that the Presidency Council, which represents all the factions in Iraq, formally adopted those benchmarks. They were supposed to have been adopted in October, November, December, January, and in February. They have not been met.

How are we going to get them to meet them, to keep an open-ended commitment, which is what the President wants us to do. Another delay and then patience. The President asks us to be patient? We should be downright impatient with the Iraqi leaders. The message to the Iraqi leaders shouldn't be, for heaven sakes, after all these casualties, that we are going to be patient with them when it is in their hands as to whether this civil strife is going to end.

If the Senator will yield for an answer.

I think the Senate spoke also prior to adopting your amendment. We voted 51 to 48, adopted an amendment which said we will begin to reduce our forces and to transition to the new mission, and that we would begin that transition within 120 days. That was vetoed by the President.

The Senate spoke even before it adopted the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. So we have spoken in many ways over the years. But now it is our belief, those of us who support this amendment, that the earlier we put pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political solution, which everybody agrees is the only hope, the earlier we put that pressure on them, the better.

I think the Senator is well aware this President is not compelled to veto anything. As a matter of fact, the report the Senator refers to, which is due in September, will be coming in before this bill gets to the President. At least there is some hope the President will see what the Republican leader in the Senate saw a month ago. It was the Senator from Kentucky who a couple of months ago said: The handwriting is on the wall. There is going to be a change of course in September.

Now, why wait? We are losing men and women, our best and our brightest, our bravest, every day in Iraq. Those who return wounded will have a lifetime of recovery in many cases. We have record numbers of problems that have come up--post-traumatic stress disorder, we have traumatic brain injuries which are plaguing our troops who survive. Thank God we have great medical care on the battlefield. Why wait until September? The Republican leader said the handwriting is on the wall. There is going to be a change of course in September. There should be a change of course, not just in September, it should have changed a long time ago. But there is no way to change this course unless the leaders of Iraq do what only they can do, what their own Prime Minister said had to happen before the bloodletting of innocents ends in Iraq. They and they alone have it in their hands to work out the political settlement, which, according to their own agreement, was supposed to have been reached months ago.

I thank my friend, and I don't view this at all as personal.

A matter of fact, we had this interim report on July 15. What did it come in and say? It came in and said, on the political side, nothing has happened in Iraq; and on the political side, we see no advances. But the political side is

where the advances have to take place. As a matter of fact, the President said, when he came up with this surge policy, that the purpose of the surge was to give the political leaders an opportunity to reach a political settlement.

Well, they have had that opportunity, they haven't done it, and the surge has not accomplished anything in the area of a political settlement.

If the Senator will yield, I think we all share that view, but the amendment, if it is anything, it is not precipitous. This is coming after a great deal of debate. We have had a vote on this. The Senate voted to do something very similar to this, and it was vetoed.

We have a 120-day period to begin to reduce forces. That is not precipitous. That gives the Iraqis notice, now 4 months more notice after enactment, which can't come for many months, that they have to begin to get their political act together.

Reserving the right to object, could we add that the next Democratic speaker will be Senator Feinstein?

I thank the Chair

I will yield to the Senator for the purpose of propounding a unanimous consent request but without yielding the floor.

Mr. President, responding to the Senator from Georgia, I understand the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, wishes to speak next in order.

Then if my friend from Georgia will allow, I gather the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, will be next.

Mr. President, I rise to address the amendment offered by Senator Levin and Senator Reed and to explain why I will vote against cloture on the amendment tomorrow morning.

I think it is important to explain that because my friend from Louisiana who spoke before me had behind her a sign that said: Let us vote. We may see that sign again. I wish to indicate that we are going to have a vote. We are going to have a vote tomorrow morning. And the question is: Will we sustain what has been a bedrock policy of the Senate to require 60 votes for a matter of great importance that comes before this body, particularly a matter where there is a lot at stake?

This amendment offered by my colleagues from Michigan and Rhode Island is a very serious amendment. Some of us believe it would have disastrous consequences for the security of the United States of America, for the safety of our troops in Iraq, for the stability of the region, for any hope for democracy in the Middle East, and a better future for the people of that part of the world than the suicidal death and hatred al-Qaida offers them.

But you know, I have recollection of times in the Senate hearing the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. He has made, over the years, some compelling arguments for why the Senate has this unusual procedure of requiring 60 votes on matters of great importance. I am not quoting him directly, but this is consistent with the vision of one of the Framers--I believe it was Madison, I am not sure--who said, if you will, that the Senate is the saucer in which the Congress will cool the coffee. As Senator Byrd said much more to the point, we in this Chamber have had for a long time this ability to request 60 votes to pass a matter when there are Members of the Senate--and I am one in this case--who believe the passage of this matter would have a profoundly negative effect on our country and its security.

I know some of my colleagues disagree with me, of course. But I am exercising my right within the tradition of the Senate to do what senior colleagues have advised over the years: to stop the passions, the political passions of a moment from sweeping across Congress into law and altering our future permanently. I have done it on other matters. I have done it on environmental matters, where I think something proposed will have so adverse an effect on some of the natural wonders that God has given the United States of America that I have said: No, I am going to be part of a group to demand 60 votes because if I allow this to pass by less, there will be an irreversible change that will occur.

With respect to my colleagues who are saying let us vote, we will vote. But the question on that vote is will we ask for 60 votes to adopt this very significant amendment? I say it is in the best traditions of the Senate to require 60 votes before this amendment is adopted.

Second, before I get to the merits of the amendment or my opinion about it, I wish to respond to something my friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, said about the bipartisan meeting we had this morning, people of different opinions on this issue discussing in a closed room across a table looking for common ground. I wish to express my own sense of disappointment, sadness, though unfortunately in these

very partisan times not surprise, that this debate we are having which reaches a kind of pitch, a moment of confrontation on the Levin-Reed amendment which would mandate a withdrawal from Iraq, that this debate is so partisan. I have a point of view about the war in Iraq and what I think is best for our security and future policy in Iraq.

I know people have different points of view. I respect that. This is a difficult, a very difficult matter on which to reach judgment. So people, of course, can have different points of view, but why do we divide in those different points of view on party lines? There is no inherent reason why that should happen. It is a sign of what ails our political system, what afflicts our Federal Government and hamstrings it, what frustrates and ultimately angers the American people about what they see here because what they see is that too often we seem to be playing partisan politics, we seem to be in a kind of partisan tug of war. The net result of that is that nothing gets done.

Wars are always controversial. Wars have been controversial throughout our history. But rarely have the divisions between those who support a war and oppose it or support particular policies associated with it and oppose it been as partisan as they are at this moment. It has to stop. If it doesn't stop on Iraq, I believe our Nation will be weakened seriously.

We have to find ways, no matter what the partisan pressures are, to come together as Americans to defend our Nation against those who hate us all--al-Qaida, Iran, the fanatics running around who exhort the tens of thousands to shout ``Death to America.'' They have been doing it since the revolution of 1979. They do it weekly throughout Iran: ``Death to America.'' Surely we understand they don't distinguish between Republicans and Democrats when they shout ``Death to America. We should have the common sense, let alone a sense of responsibility to our country, to come together and defend our Nation against those who want to destroy us, as al-Qaida began to do on 9/11.

I regret the partisanship that characterizes this debate.

I wish to talk very briefly about how we got here, not going over it in any detail. This Congress authorized the President to take action to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the administration had attempted, through the United Nations Security Council, to get Saddam to take certain steps, including proving to us he had destroyed the weapons of mass destruction, he had filed an inventory with the United Nations Security Council as a condition of the truce and end to the gulf war of 1991.

I don't wish to revisit that. I know people look back at him and think they were deceived in why we went to war. I think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. But this takes me to this point. For 3 years afterward, this country followed a strategy in Iraq that didn't work. We followed a strategy in Iraq for too long that didn't work. I strongly supported the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and deeply desired that we do everything we could not just to overthrow him but to try to create within Iraq a new Iraq, a free Iraq, a self- governing Iraq that would give hope to people throughout the Arab world, the Muslim world, of a better future than the one that al-Qaida offers them, which is a return to a millennium ago, away from the modern world, but we erred for 3 years. Many of us cried out that we did not have enough troops there, we were following a strategy that did not work, too few troops and not focusing on al-Qaida training, an insufficient ability to do that, and letting the terrorists essentially take hold of the country.

Finally, last year, the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, changed the course in Iraq. He changed the leadership of the Pentagon, which was critically necessary. He brought in a new Secretary of Defense, consulted with experts on all sides about what to do, how to improve what was happening in Iraq, and adopted a totally new strategy. That is why when I hear people in this debate saying we need a change of course in Iraq, well, we got a change of course, finally. It was later than I hoped for, but, finally, at the end of last year, beginning in February, the counteroffensive, called a surge, and a new general, a great general--a general in the tradition of Maxwell Taylor, General Abrams, a general who was called on in a very difficult situation, probably the single most informed leader on counterinsurgency in our military, GEN David Petraeus, to take charge of these troops--and he gave him 30,000 additional troops.

The evidence thus far is incomplete, because as has been said, and will be said again, the surge was just fully staffed about a month ago. But you have to look at the statistics. I know the benchmark that came in, the interim one last week, was mixed. But on the security side, which is what the surge was first aimed at, deaths from sectarian violence are way down in Baghdad, more than half the city is now under the control of American and Iraqi forces, and normalcy is returning to many parts of the capital city, and Anbar Province, the story is well known now. Basically, the additional troops and the new strategy enabled us to convince the Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar, which al- Qaida was going to make the capital of its Islamist extremist caliphate, We convinced the tribal leaders we were there to stay, so they came to our side, and al-Qaida is on the run--and for the first time. Always before we had the strategy where we would chase the terrorists out of a community, a city, in Baghdad, and we would leave and then they would come back. This time, in Anbar Province, we left some of our marines and some of the Iraqi security forces, working with the Sunni indigenous tribal leaders, and what did we do? We followed al-Qaida on the run to Diyala Province, to Baquba city, the major city there, and we have them on the run there as well. As a result, the tribal leaders there are beginning to come over to our side. So this surge, interim as the reports are, is, on the ground, working.

Now comes the Levin-Reed amendment. I wish to say to my colleagues this is not the Levin-Reed amendment we voted on earlier this year. That amendment did require the beginning of a withdrawal of troops within 120 days of passage, as this amendment does. But that amendment set a goal--G-O-A-L--a goal for our troops to be substantially withdrawn from Iraq by the end of March of next year. It is no longer a goal in this Levin-Reed amendment. It is a mandate, a rigid deadline that by the end of April of next year most of our troops are out of Iraq. A core group is left, presumably with the stated purpose to train the Iraqis and to fight al-Qaida, which is exactly what the previous policy that failed was aimed at doing.

Some have said this is the only amendment with teeth. It does have teeth. But I think we have to ask: Who does it bite? I think it bites our hope for success in Iraq. It bites our troops, as they proceed day in and day out, courageously, compassionately, effectively. It bites our hope for keeping al-Qaida and Iran out of controlling Iraq. This amendment mandates a retreat to begin in 4 months, 120 days, regardless of what is happening on the ground.

This is not a debate about whether to change course in Iraq, it is a debate about whether to accept and embrace defeat in Iraq. We have changed course, as I said before. This is a debate about whether we are going to give our generals and our troops the chance that they say they need to succeed, and succeed they know they can, or if we are going to order them to retreat--we order them to retreat--as they on the ground are risking their lives every day and succeeding.

We are going to, if this amendment passes, impose a deadline that is as inflexible as it is arbitrary. I say this with respect, but I say it from the bottom of my heart. This is a deadline for an American defeat, one that we will pay for, I fear, for a generation to come.

Let us be absolutely clear again about what the amendment we are debating now would do. If adopted, this amendment would literally put this Congress between the Commander in Chief, our generals, and our soldiers in the field. So just as our troops are on the offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq, just as our troops have the enemy on the run, this amendment would reach 5,000 miles across the ocean and put our troops on the run in retreat and defeat.

I will tell you this, the American military, the best in the world-- courageous, resourceful, fighting a tough fight but adjusting to it, resilient, finding ways to succeed--the American military will never lose the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq, if it is to be lost, will be lost as a result of a loss of political will here at home, and you have to judge the consequences of that. Each one of us has to.

In the midst of an unpredictable war, this amendment would strip our military commanders not only of the troops they say they need to succeed--this amendment would remove the troops from our commanding generals--it would strip them of the authority and the ability to adapt to changing conditions, which, after all, is what success in war is all about, putting America's military in a legislative straitjacket.

I am going to do everything I can to stop that from happening, and that is why I am going to vote against cloture. This amendment is wrong. I truly believe it is dangerous. In fact, this amendment should not even be considered now. I welcome the debate, but I believe, when we passed the supplemental appropriations bill in which we authorized the surge to go forward, in which we appropriated funds for the surge, in which we established the requirement for the benchmark, for which we got the study last week and then the next one coming in September, to me we made an institutional pledge in that to General Petraeus and the troops. Because in that bill we required General Petraeus, along with our Ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, to come back in September and report to us. We wanted to give them, at the request of General Petraeus, time from the middle of June, when the surge troops would have arrived, to September to see whether he could make it work and report back to us.

I don't think there is a person in this Chamber, no matter what our position on Iraq, that doesn't trust General Petraeus to tell us the truth, what he believes, when he comes back in September. I think we made an institutional pledge to him. But I know this: I made a personal pledge to him. I am going to give him and the troops a fair chance, which this amendment would deprive him of, and I am going to give him until September to come back and tell me how it is going.

All of us would like to believe, I certainly would, that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq. All of us, I certainly would, would like to go back and do over a lot of what happened after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. All of us want our brave men and women in uniform to come home safely and as soon as possible. All of us are keenly aware of the frustration and fatigue the American people are feeling about this war. But we, who have been honored by our constituents to be elected to serve in the Senate, have a responsibility to lead, not to follow. We have a responsibility--it is the oath we took when we were sworn in--to do what we believe is right for our country, even if it is unpopular.

I speak for myself, but I firmly believe what is right is that we cannot allow our Nation to be defeated in Iraq by the same Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11, with whom we are engaged now in a worldwide war that stretches from Baghdad to London, from Madrid to Riyadh, from Bali to Jerusalem, and from Fort Dix to JFK Airport.

The sponsors of this resolution insist what is happening in Iraq is a civil war, and they want us to not be part of it. But this argument flies in the face of the statements of al-Qaida's own top leaders who have repeatedly told us they consider Iraq to be, today, the central battlefield of their world war against us. We didn't start this world war, they did, by attacking us.

I wish to take a moment to read some comments, direct quotes, from leaders of al-Qaida that make this clear. I am not making it up. I am not quoting somebody in the administration.

December 2004. Osama bin Laden.

I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation.

Listen and understand. The most important and serious issue

today for the whole world is this Third World war. It is

raging in the lands of the two rivers--Iraq. The world's

millstone and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the

caliphate.

July 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri, second to bin Laden, as we know, in al- Qaida. A letter to Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, the head of Iraq, subsequently killed by coalition forces. Quote from Zawahiri to Zarqawi:

I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has

blessed you with in terms of fighting a battle in the heart

of the Islamic world, what is now the place for the greatest

battle of Islam in this era.

Zawahiri, in that same letter:

The Mujahadeen must not have their mission end with the

expulsion of the Americans from Iraq. No, the first stage is

to expel the Americans from Iraq; the second stage is to

establish an Islamic authority, or emirate, over as much of

the territory as you can, to spread its power in Iraq.

And then there is a third stage Zawahiri says.

The third stage is to extend the jihad to the secular

countries neighboring Iraq.

This is not me. This is not some administration spokesperson, this is Zawahiri, No. 2 in al-Qaida.

December of 2006, Zawahiri says:

The backing of the jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq today is

to back the most important battlefields in which the crusade

against Islam is in progress, and the defeat of the crusaders

will have a far-reaching effect on the future of the Muslim

Umah.

I could go on. I will read one final one. May 2007, 2 months ago, and this is Zawahiri again in a tape.

The critical importance of the jihad in Iraq and

Afghanistan becomes clear, because the defeat of the

crusaders there soon, Allah permitted, lead to the setting up

of two mujahedin emirates, which will be launch pads for the

liberation of the Islamic lands and the establishment of the

caliphate. That is why I call on the Muslim Umah not to lag

behind or tarry in supporting jihad in general and jihad in

Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, in view of the pivotal

importance of these two arenas.

I started this because I said that some of my colleagues offering this amendment say we are in a civil war in Iraq and we ought not to be there. There is sectarian violence. That is why we have the counterinsurgency plan, which is to try to stop the sectarian violence, and it is working so far. Surely we don't know whether it will work finally, but sectarian violence has been significantly reduced in Baghdad and now Anbar and Diyala Provinces. But the argument that this is simply a civil war is totally rejected, denied by these statements of al-Qaida's own leaders.

We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq. You can't withdraw from Iraq and fight al-Qaida. That is whom we are fighting. Who is going to win if we pull out? Al-Qaida will and Iran will. Listen to what Zawahiri and bin Laden said they are going to do: They are going to establish the capital of the caliphate, the empire, and they are going to go out into the neighboring countries.

Incidentally, the notion that somehow we are not fighting al-Qaida in Iraq and that this is just a civil war also flies in the face of the National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaida that was released today, which describes al-Qaida in Iraq as the most visible and capable affiliate of al-Qaida worldwide. Of note, and I quote in full:

We assess that al-Qaeda will probably seek to leverage the

context and capabilities of al-Qaeda in Iraq, its most

visible and capable affiliate, and the only one that is

beyond bin Laden and Zawahiri, the only local affiliate known

to have expressed a desire to attack the American homeland.

So I know people laugh or jest when people say if we don't defeat them there we will be fighting them here, but this is what the National Intelligence Estimate says. We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq, the only local affiliate of al-Qaida that has also talked about, and some have reason to believe may be acting upon, their desire to attack America here in our homeland. That is the National Intelligence Estimate.

It seems to me that it is perverse that on the same day we receive this National Intelligence Estimate about the threat posed by al-Qaida and about its direct linkage to Iraq, Zawahiri to Zarqawi, bin Laden talking about the centrality of what is happening in Iraq, that the Senate would consider voting for an amendment mandating our retreat in the face of al-Qaida from Iraq.

I ask, why is this amendment before us? One of the most commonly heard explanations for the amendment mandating the beginning of a withdrawal of American troops in 120 days, and most of them out by next April, is that an American military retreat is necessary--and I quote here one of the

sponsors of the amendment--``to prod the Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement.''

So we are going to force a retreat, probably threaten the viability of the Iraqi Government, yield the country to al-Qaida and Iranian- backed terrorists, and we are doing it to send a message to the Iraqi political leadership that they better get their act together. But the argument that our forcing a retreat of our military, our troops, will prod the Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement is pure speculation. It is amateur psychology without any evidence that I can see to support it. In fact, the expert evidence goes in the other direction. From people who follow what is happening in Iraq closely, who say that as soon--and maybe some of this is psychology, too, but to me it seems more sensible than the other argument--as soon as we begin to set a deadline date, the Iraqi political leadership is not going to suddenly come together and settle their differences, they are going to hunker down in camps and get ready for the battle of all battles, which will be a total civil war, huge ethnic slaughter I fear, probably a kind of genocide.

One of our military leaders in Iraq when I was there 5 weeks ago said to me: Senator, if your colleagues don't like what they see in Darfur today, and they should not like it, they are going to hate what they see in Iraq if the American military pulls out before the Iraqis can maintain security.

Here, too, we have a National Intelligence Estimate that directly rejects the contention that we need to force a retreat of our troops, open the country to a takeover by al-Qaida in Iraq, to convince the Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement.

There was a recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. In it, the conclusion was presented that the rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops required by this amendment would, ``almost certainly have adverse effects on national reconciliation'' in Iraq.

So rather than promoting political progress, this amendment would have the exact opposite effect than its sponsors intend, and actually undermine it.

I know that cots have been brought in tonight to allow Senators to sleep during parts of the night when they are not required on the floor. I think, really, what I hope this does is wake up the Senators and wake up the American people to the threat we face; to wake them up to what our intelligence agencies are saying about Iraq, to what the stakes for us are in Iraq, for what the consequences are for us of a defeat in Iraq, for the strength of the Petraeus counteroffensive surge and how much it is achieving.

It is time for all of us to wake up to what is actually happening in Iraq before it is too late. It is time to stop dreaming that a mandated withdrawal, or whatever you call it--a redeployment is really nothing other than a mandated defeat. I suppose if you don't think that defeat in Iraq will have consequences for our future security, then I can understand that. But I, of course, profoundly disagree.

We face vicious enemies in Iraq today. We know who they are. They are al-Qaida and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Al-Qaida is fighting in Iraq because they want to bring down the Iraqi Government and they want to stop any progress toward self-government until a modern Iraq. They want the state to fail so they can establish what bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi said clearly, a caliphate, an empire with the capital of the empire there.

What about Iran? Iran is training, funding, and arming terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq. This Senate spoke unanimously against that, presenting evidence of it last week, 97 to 0. Why does Iran do that? It wants America out of Iraq so it can dominate that country and the region.

These are enemies that cannot be negotiated with or reasoned out of existence. I am all for diplomacy with Iran. I am glad our ambassador met with their ambassador in Baghdad in May, but ultimately negotiations that have gone on with Iran, conducted by the European Governments for more than 2 years to try to convince them to stop the development of nuclear weapons, produced nothing but giving them 2 more years to go ahead with that development. These are not enemies who are interested in the political reconciliation of which the sponsors of this amendment speak.

In other words, al-Qaida and Iran are not fighting in Iraq to encourage or bring about a political reconciliation. These enemies must be confronted and defeated through force of arms. That is precisely what our brave men and women in uniform are doing today under this new counterinsurgency strategy, and they are succeeding. I ask my colleagues in this Chamber finally to listen carefully to the words of a great American soldier, Rick Lynch, commander of the Third Infantry Division now serving in Iraq. His soldiers are, today, leading the fight south of Baghdad. General Lynch reported just this past weekend that his forces were making significant gains in reclaiming areas that just a few weeks ago in Baghdad were terrorist safe havens. These are towns on the outskirts of Baghdad where al-Qaida in Iraq had terrorized the local population into submission and then set up shop, assembling the car bombs that then were used to kill hundreds of innocent people earlier this year. That is the way to try to stop these suicidal maniacs from blowing themselves up and killing a lot of Iraqis and Americans with them--which is their attempt to respond to our counteroffensive surge policy and their attempt to do something else: to influence the American public opinion to get out of Iraq.

General Lynch also stated that in his professional military judgment--this is a soldier, not a politician--the current troop surge must be maintained through early next year in order to achieve success. In his words:

It's going to take us through the summer and fall to deny

the enemy his sanctuaries and then it's going to take us

through the first of the year into the spring to consolidate

these gains.

Incidentally, it may be that those gains will be consolidated by next spring, and we will be able to begin to draw down some of the American forces there. But do we have the confidence to know that today, to mandate that to happen? I hope we are in a position--and I am sure General Petraeus does, and I am sure the President does--to begin to order that kind of beginning of withdrawal because the surge has succeeded, not order a withdrawal as an alternative policy to the surge.

I return to General Lynch. He warned that pulling back before the job was completed would ``create an environment where the enemy would come back in and fill the void.'' General Lynch also reported that he was ``amazed at the cooperation his troops were encountering in previously hostile areas.'' In his words:

When we go out there the first question the Iraqis ask us

is, are you staying? And the second question is, how can we

help?

In other words, what General Lynch said is what they are worried about is our leaving. And our answer is: We are staying. And when we give that answer they say: How can we help?

They want a better future than al-Qaida and Iran controlling their country. General Lynch has given us a clear and compelling explanation in the direct words of a soldier about the nature of this war. In his view, the U.S. military needs the additional troops that are now in theater to prevail, and they are, as we speak, prevailing. In this regard, the choice before this Senate is a direct one. Either General Lynch is badly mistaken about the reality of this war or this amendment is badly mistaken about the reality of this war. They cannot both be right.

I go with General Lynch. He is on the ground. He has no motives other than to do what is right for his country. He has every motive to want to protect his troops. But he believes in our cause.

We have a choice to make. We can ignore the recommendations of our general in the field and withdraw in defeat. We can rationalize our action with reassuring but falsely hopeful words such as ``redeployment,'' but no matter what we say our enemy will know that America's will has been broken by the barbarity of their blood lust, the very barbarity we declare we are fighting, but from which, if this amendment ever passed, we would actually be running.

There is, of course, no guarantee that the path we are on will lead to success. There never is in war. But what General Petraeus is offering is a strong, smart, and practical strategy, informed by his experience and expertise, that carries a reasonable hope of victory

from whose jaws this amendment would snatch defeat. This amendment is a surrender to terrorism. It is a victory to al-Qaida and Iran. It is an invitation to a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East, and most directly the United States of America.

Iraq is not lost. It can be won, and if it is won we will have secured a better, brighter future for the people of that country, the hope of greater stability and opportunity and peace for the people of the region, and the hope and promise of greater security for the American people. Iraq is not lost. But if we adopt this amendment it will be; so, I fear, will so much of our hope for democracy and stability in the Middle East and for our own safety from terrorism here at home. That is why I will vote against cloture and against the Levin- Reed amendment tomorrow morning.

I yield the floor.