Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said:

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

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

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

equally.

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

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

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

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

Active-duty companies preparing for deployment to Iraq

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

are commanded by young, inexperienced lieutenants [--young

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

for training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tasks we should be doing in Iraq.

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

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

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

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

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

The military is so short of equipment that it will take

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

levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

How much time do we have?

And the other side?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

On behalf of the junior Senator from South Carolina, I object.

Mr. President, I appreciate the time.

I rise to support the Webb amendment on troop readiness. The distinguished junior Senator from Virginia has taken, once again, an important leadership role on an issue that is as important to our country, to our military, and their families as any one issue, and that is readiness, because it is the men and women whom we ask to fight and die for this country who must always be our highest priority. The men and women who serve this country in uniform and their families deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifices. I appreciate the leadership of my friend from Virginia on this issue. This is part of an amendment Senator Webb and I had introduced a couple of months ago.

In February of this year, GEN Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to Congress that there is now, in his words, ``significant'' risk that our military will not be able to respond to an emerging crisis in another part of the world. Since that time, the United States has sent more of our soldiers and more of our military equipment to Iraq.

The war in Iraq has pushed the U.S. military to the breaking point. I, like most of my colleagues, have been told by military leaders, both on active duty and those who are retired, that we are doing tremendous damage to our Army and to our Marine Corps, as well as our Army National Guard. Our troops are being deployed longer than they should be, more frequently than they should be, and without full training and equipment. We are eroding our military power at a time when our country faces an increasing arc of challenges and threats across the globe. We are abusing our all-voluntary force in a dangerous and irresponsible way. Senator Webb recited a number of the facts--facts, not interpretations, not subjective analysis, but facts--as to what is happening to our military today because of the burden we are placing on them in Iraq, our fifth year in Iraq, our sixth year in Afghanistan.

This amendment goes to the heart of ensuring the readiness of our military and the time between deployments. This amendment will ensure that all Active units that have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan have time at home that is at least equal to the length of the previous deployment. If we can't commit at least that to our forces, then what can we commit to them? For the National Guard and Reserves, our amendment establishes a minimum 3 years between deployments. Longer and more predictable dwell time will allow soldiers to rest, reequip, retrain, and return to their families. Our amendment has waiver authority because there can be extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary use of our military. We have used that over and over and over in Iraq.

Today, in our fifth year in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, we must return to the standards that allowed us to create the finest military force the world has ever known, the best led, the best educated, the best trained, the

best equipped, and the most committed military the world has ever known. You can't make those kinds of militaries. You can't build those kinds of militaries overnight or even over 5 years. It took some of this country's greatest military leaders post-World War II--more importantly, post-Vietnam--such as General Powell, General Schwarzkopf, and many others, to commit their lives, 35 years of their lives to rebuild a broken military after we broke it in Vietnam. We are headed in the same direction unless we get control of this disaster now. Nothing is more important to our country, to our society than our people.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I appreciate the leadership of the junior Senator from Virginia who knows something about the military, who knows something about war.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SPC Josiah Hollopeter of Valentine, NE. Specialist Hollopeter was killed on June 14 in Al Muqdadiyah, Iraq. He was 27 years old.

Specialist Hollopeter graduated from Valentine High School in 1998. He played high school football as a defensive end, starting as a senior opposite his brother Tyler, a sophomore at the time. Tyler would also go on to serve in Iraq as an Army helicopter pilot.

Before joining the Army, Specialist Hollopeter worked construction jobs in Omaha and San Diego. He also worked for a canoe outfitter along the Niobrara River for several summers.

Like so many young men and women of his generation, the terrorist attacks of September 11 had a profound impact on Specialist Hollopeter and inspired him to serve his country. He enlisted with the Army in January 2006. He served with the 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based at Ford Hood, Texas. We are proud of Specialist Hollopeter's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq.

In addition to his brother, Specialist Hollopeter is survived by his parents Ken and Kelly Hollopeter; wife Heather; and sister Anna Hollopeter.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SPC Josiah Hollopeter.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SPC Adam Herold of Omaha, NE. Specialist Herold was killed on June 10 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his patrol in Karbala, Iraq. He was 23 years old.

Specialist Herold was the youngest of three brothers in a close-knit Nebraska family. He attended Roncalli High School and would later join the Job Corps in Utah to learn a trade.

In 2005, Specialist Herold made the decision to join the Army. He saw service in the Army as a means to a college education. But he also came from a family with a strong tradition of service to the country. Both of his grandfathers served in World War II.

Specialist Herold had been serving in Iraq since October 2006 with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, based at Ford Richardson, AK.

We are proud of Specialist Herold's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq.

He is survived by his parents Lance and Debbie Herold, and brothers Andy and Kyle, both of Omaha.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SPC Adam Herold.

Mr. President, I rise today to wish the U.S. Army a happy birthday. It was 232 years ago today, June 14, 1775, that the Continental Army of the United States was formed.

Over the past 232 years, millions of men and women have served in the oldest branch of our Armed Forces. Their honor, courage, sacrifice, and service are the foundation of America's greatness. The Army principles of ``Duty, Honor, Country'' represent the core values of America. Every generation of Americans who have served in the U.S. Army--from the Continental Army to our fighting men and women serving today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere--has been shaped by these principles. They inspire us and will continue to serve as role models for future generations.

The Army has steadfastly protected our way of life and has never turned from a challenge. As the Army Song so eloquently says:

First to fight for the right,

And to build the Nation's might,

And The Army Goes Rolling Along,

Proud of all we have done,

Fighting till the battle's won,

And the Army Goes Rolling Along.

Today's soldiers are the newest generation in a long line of dedicated professionals who have put service to the Nation over self. These soldiers, just as those who have gone before them, will continue to protect our democracy and make the world more secure, peaceful, and prosperous.

On this 232nd birthday of the U.S. Army, we recognize and thank all those who have served or are serving our country with pride and honor in the uniform of the U.S. Army, especially those serving today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

``Happy Birthday'' to the U.S. Army.

Madam President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer Chris Allgaier of Omaha, NE. Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier, an Army helicopter pilot, was killed on May 30 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. He was 33 years old.

Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier attended Creighton Prep High School, where he graduated with highest honors in 1991. He earned a bachelor's degree in aeronautical administration from Saint Louis University in 1995 and a master's degree in aeronautical science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautic University in 2001.

After graduating from college, Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier joined the Army to pursue a longtime interest in flying. He served with the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, based out of Fort Bragg, NC. This was his second tour in Afghanistan. Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier also served a year-long tour in Iraq. We are proud of Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier's service tour our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is survived by his wife Jennie and three children, Natalie, Gina, and Joanna, of Spring Lake, NC; his father Bob Allgaier of Omaha, and siblings Rob and Sharon, also of Omaha.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Chief Warrant Officer Chris Allgaier.

Specialist William Bailey III

Madam President, I also rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army National Guard Specialist William Bailey III of Bellevue, NE. Specialist Bailey died on May 25 when an explosive device struck his vehicle near Taji, Iraq. He was 29 years old.

Specialist Bailey had been serving in Iraq since November with the 755th Chemical Reconnaissance/Decontamination Company. Specialist Bailey was also a volunteer with the Bellevue Volunteer Fire Department for 5 years. He was buried with full military honors and traditional fire department honors. His funeral procession included 35 firetrucks from several departments across Nebraska.

Specialist Bailey is remembered as a devoted husband, father, son, and brother, as well as a committed member of the community. He was an avid hunter and outdoorsman, and he loved motorcycles.

We are proud of Specialist Bailey's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq.

He is survived by his wife Deanna and five children.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SPC William Bailey III.

Madam President, this is a sad day for all of us. Wyoming and the Senate have lost Craig Thomas. He was a neighbor. He was a friend. He was an individual whose life was committed to his country and his State.

Often, when he would refer to my State of Nebraska, he would say: Oh, yes, that State of Nebraska; that is where Wyoming sends all of its wind. He said other things as well. Many times, he and Senator Enzi were responsible for stealing Nebraska's water. Other than those obvious flaws, Craig Thomas was one of those unique individuals whom we have heard his colleagues speak of this morning. None have exaggerated in their descriptions of this remarkable man. He, as has been noted, was a marine. He was a straight shooter. He was born and raised on a ranch in Wyoming. When you add all of that up, what else could he be but a straight shooter?

He worked hard, as has been noted here this morning. Chairman Lugar outlined some of the participation of Craig Thomas on the Foreign Relations Committee where I, too, had an opportunity to serve with him. No one was ever better prepared when he spoke, more knowledgeable of the subject matter, and more a joy to be around because he never lost the most important element of each of us; that is, a humanness, the human dynamic. He had a special humanity that is not always easy to retain in this town and in this business. But that is what Craig Thomas was, and I think that is what most of us admired most about him.

If service to America is one of America's highest and most important values, then Craig Thomas's legacy speaks volumes because that was his life. Lilibet and I offer our sympathy and our prayers to Susan and to the family. He served with great distinction and always put others first.

One last comment about a memory of Craig Thomas for me. In 1996, when I was campaigning for my first elective office to the U.S. Senate and when there was a very legitimate question of whether I was worthy of election and whether I could win, Craig Thomas flew over from Wyoming to central Nebraska and spent a day campaigning with me in 1996. Craig was the first U.S. Senator to help me, to come into my State, and that day I spent with him talking about water issues, agricultural issues, the Marine Corps, and service to our country inspired all who were around him. I noted that those ranchers and those water resource specialists and others whom we visited on that campaign tour that day responded to him in a way that was rather special. I later learned through my almost 11 years in the Senate why people responded to him in such a special way.

We will miss him. He leaves our institution, his State, and his country better than he found them.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be registered in favor of vote No. 176, the Akaka amendment. My change will not affect the outcome. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be changed from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

Madam President, I rise today to address the issue of Iraq. The debate on Iraq over the last few weeks in our country and the Congress has been centered on conditions for America's continued involvement in Iraq. Unfortunately, it has been defined by many in the context of political winners and losers. Either President Bush wins or Congress wins. That is not responsible legislation. That is not a responsible approach to a serious issue such as a war, when today we have crossed over to 3,400 Americans killed in Iraq.

The troops will get their money. They need to get their money. We will find a center of gravity that will accommodate the President and the Congress with the appropriate language or conditions for America's continued involvement in Iraq. The question we need to focus on now is: Where is Iraq headed? The answer will require an honest and clear analysis of the facts, as the facts are on the ground in Iraq today.

I returned 3 weeks ago from my fifth trip to Iraq, and there is not much good news in Iraq. There is no point unraveling the last 4 or 5 years of mistakes and bad decisions or assigning blame. We are where we are. We are where we are, and we must get beyond the immediacy of today and the debate over the conditions of our continued involvement. We need to ask the question: What happens next? What happens in September and October? What comes after, hopefully, a reduction in violence? Where are we going in Iraq? How do we get there? Do we need a new strategy in Iraq, new thinking?

As Secretary of Defense Gates has said, America's continued support is not open-ended, and the American people have registered that fact very clearly. Iraq is caught in a vicious complicated cycle of violence, despair, and no solutions. This cycle must be broken. American military power alone will not be the solution in Iraq. General Petraeus and all of our military leaders have stated this.

Iraq's political system and leaders seem incapable of finding a political accommodation to move Iraq toward a political reconciliation. Our civilian and military leaders all agree there is no military resolution. That is only a temporary holding pattern for the Iraqis to find that new consensus of governance, and only a political resolution in Iraq will sustain that new center of gravity and that new consensus.

Some strategic new thinking must be found in Iraq for our policies, not unlike what Ambassador Carlos Pasqual, Larry Diamond, and many others, have been thinking and writing about and putting forward over the last few weeks. First we must take the American face off of Iraq. Get America out of the middle of the Iraqi political process. We are exacerbating, we are complicating the problem; not because we are not well-intentioned and have not made tremendous sacrifices but because the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East believe we are still an occupying power after 4 years in Iraq.

We must engage, as the Baker-Hamilton report recommended, Iran and Syria. The Bush administration deserves credit in beginning the engagement; however, it needs to be done in a regional framework, not a series of bilateral talks with unclear or disjointed purposes and objectives. The time has come to consider an international mediator for Iraq--probably under the auspices of the United Nations--to begin a new process for achieving some form of political accommodation in Iraq. The Iraqis are obviously incapable of bringing that consensus, that accommodation together. Only a credible and trusted outside influence can bring this political reconciliation about in Iraq. If it can be done, it will be up to the Iraqis to support it and to sustain it. America cannot do that for them.

There are significant political, cultural, historical, religious, and regional differences between Iraq and other countries that have had UN mediators, such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, East Timor, and Northern Ireland. But they have been tailored to work, and they have worked.

We have to understand we have no options in Iraq today. There is chaos today in Iraq. We must change direction, strategy, and policy. America can continue to support this process and help ensure the success of this mediation, but we can't, and we won't, continue to be the occupying power in Iraq.

America has an important strategic, geopolitical, energy, and economic interest in the Middle East. It would be irresponsible to abandon Iraq and other interests in the region. But if we don't find a new direction soon, and a responsible and workable policy to help the Iraqis find some core stability, bringing some political consensus, America will leave and the Middle East could then erupt into a very dangerous regional conflagration. Reality and clear new strategic thinking being incorporated in a new direction and policy in Iraq is now required. These are the essential dynamics the Congress must now engage in--the Congress, with the President--and we must put aside the partisan dynamics, the partisan difficulties and differences. War should never be held captive to partisanship. It should never be a wedge issue for either political party. This is too serious. It is very serious.

As we enter our fifth year, with the kind of money and casualties we have invested in Iraq, we must ask ourselves: Where do we go next? How do we get there? I think that will depend on some bold new strategic thinking, incorporating a new UN mediator we can support and frame and be a part of, and taking the American face off of the political process in Iraq. These are the issues we must debate and find consensus on.

I would hope as we work our way through the differences on the $100 billion in additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan that we will move to that next series of significant consequences and seriously find a new strategy and policy for Iraq and America's interests in Iraq and the Middle East.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the men and women that serve our Nation as military spouses. I greatly admire the strength, courage, and commitment of these special individuals.

In 1984, President Ronald Regan recognized the vital importance and personal sacrifice of the military spouse by declaring the Friday before Mother's Day as Military Spouse Appreciation Day. The impact that the military spouse has on the readiness and effectiveness of today's all-volunteer Armed Forces cannot be overstated.

However, military spouses are rarely thanked or recognized for the vital role that they play in maintaining our national security.

Today, more than 50 percent of our total force is married. Of the 1.12 million military spouses 92 percent are women, 78 percent are enlisted spouses, 57 percent are between the ages of 25-40 years, 73 percent have children, and 65 percent also work outside of the home.

The Armed Forces' current operational tempo has placed unique challenges and extraordinary strain on our military families. Months of waiting and late nights filled with worry about a forward deployed loved one can take a toll on the most steadfast and stout-hearted man or woman. Despite this intense strain, military spouses have remained committed and loyal to their servicemember and families. These men and women know the true meaning of sacrifice and devotion.

Today, America says thank you to our loving military spouses.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SSG Kenneth Locker of Burwell, NE. Sergeant Locker was killed on April 23 in Diyala province, Iraq. He was 28 years old.

Sergeant Locker graduated from Burwell High School in 1997. He enlisted with the Army while he was still in high school. Bob Lee, his high school math teacher, said that after he enlisted, Sergeant Locker became a much more focused young man whose grades shot up.

After high school, Sergeant Locker spent 3 years in the Army, 2 years with the National Guard, and eventually reenlisted with the Army. He had been in Iraq since August 2006 with the Army's historic 82nd Airborne Division.

Sergeant Locker was previously injured in Iraq by a land mine. He was awarded a Purple Heart and lived with shrapnel in his neck. Thousands of brave men and women like Sergeant Locker are serving in Iraq.

In addition to his life as a soldier, Sergeant Locker was father to three young sons and believed he was making a safer world for his children. He is also survived by his father Ken, two sisters, and a half sister and half brother. We are proud of his service to our country.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SSG Kenneth Locker.

first lieutenant kevin gaspers

I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army 1LT Kevin Gaspers of Hastings, NE. Lieutenant Gaspers was killed on Apri1 23 in Diya1a province, Iraq. He was 26 years old.

Lieutenant Gaspers was a 2000 graduate of St. Cecilia High School in Hastings, where he wrestled and played football. After graduation, he attended the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and enrolled in the ROTC program. As a senior at UNL, Lieutenant Gaspers was selected to lead the ROTC cadet's battalion. His colleagues remember him as low-key and professional in his leadership style. He earned his Army officer's commission in 2005, along with a degree from UNL in accounting.

Lieutenant Gaspers was a paratrooper with the Army's historic 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg, N.C. He had been serving in Iraq since August 2006.

Lieutenant Gaspers is survived by his parents, John and Pam, and sisters Katie and Audrey. We are proud of his service to our country.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring 1LT Kevin Gaspers.

Mr. President, this is an article from the April 20, 2007, Omaha World Herald, ``Bataan Death March Survivor Still Beating Odds at 101'' by Joseph Morton:

When Albert Brown returned home after years in Japanese

camps for prisoners of war, a doctor told him to get out and

enjoy life while he still could.

The native of North Platte, Neb., was unlikely to see 50,

the doctor told him, given the illnesses, extreme

malnutrition and physical abuse he suffered as a POW.

Brown is 101 now--the oldest living survivor of the Bataan

Death March.

He was recognized by fellow survivors at a Washington

conference this week that coincided with the 65th anniversary

of the march.

During the trip, Brown visited with a fellow veteran from

North Platte, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. He sat in Hagel's

Capitol Hill office, spinning some of the tales he's racked

up over an eventful life.

His darkest stories come from the war.

In the late 1930s, Brown--who had been in ROTC in high

school and college--got the call from Uncle Sam. He was to

leave his Council Bluffs dental practice and report to the

Army in two weeks.

In 1941, when he was 35, Brown was shipped off to the

Philippines, not long before the Japanese attacked there. Out

of supplies and with no reinforcements in sight, American

forces and their Filipino allies surrendered after months of

fighting in 1942.

The exact numbers vary somewhat from account to account,

but more than 70,000 American and Filipino soldiers were

captured. Overwhelmed with the task of transporting so many

prisoners, the Japanese forced them to march north. Disease,

thirst, hunger and killings marked the brutal ordeal, which

lasted for days.

Brown recalled being lined up and forced to march with no

food and no water. He said local civilians would approach and

attempt to throw food to the marchers.

``The Japanese would beat the hell out of them,'' he said.

``They'd go over there and take the butt of their rifle and

just beat the hell out of those people, girls and boys, that

threw stuff in there.''

Brown also witnessed the beheading of a 17-year-old Marine,

who was forced to the ground ``on his hands and knees, and

then they took the samurai sword out and severed his head.''

Brown himself was stabbed.

``I started faltering and got to the back of the pack, and

then the Japanese (soldier) came up and stuck a bayonet in my

fanny and he yelled 'Speed-o!,' and I knew what 'speed-o'

meant. I never was at the back of the pack after that.''

At the prison camps in the Philippines, the violence and

the shortages of food, medicine and water continued. Brown

recalled how the temperature soared while the tens of

thousands of men in camp relied on a single brass faucet for

water. Fights would break out over places in line for that

spigot, he said.

``Every drop in that canteen was your life.''

Later, Brown was one of the soldiers packed into a ``hell

ship'' to camps in Japan and China. He remained a prisoner

until the end of the war.

He suffered numerous health problems as a result of his

captivity, even losing his eyesight for a time.

Brown's memories also wind their way back to his childhood

in North Platte. His father, an engineer with Union Pacific

Railroad, was killed when a locomotive exploded in 1910.

The family lived a couple of blocks from William F.

``Buffalo Bill'' Cody. Brown said his family became friends

with the former Wild West hero, whom he described as a quiet

man who liked to sit on their porch. As a child, Brown

recalled, he would sit on Cody's lap and run a hand through

his beard.

``I don't know whether he liked that or not. Anyway, I kept

doing it.''

The family later moved to Council Bluffs, where Brown

attended high school. He went to Creighton University's

dental school.

He was quarterback of Creighton's football team and played

as a forward on the basketball team. He received a medallion

during the school's centennial celebration in 2005.

In the years after the war, Brown moved to Hollywood, where

he met a number of movie stars, including John Wayne. He said

he used to play handball with one of Wayne's sons.

Brown has retained his sense of humor and likes to throw a

sly wink in with many of his jokes. He kidded that, during

his trip to the East Coast, he had yet to find a girl to take

back to Illinois, where he now lives with his daughter.

``I don't tell the girls I'm 102,'' he said, projecting his

age to the milestone he'll hit later this year.

What's left for Brown to do? He suggested to Hagel that

perhaps he could be a U.S. senator.

``We should make you a senator, and maybe we'd get some

things done up here,'' Hagel replied.

I do yield for that purpose.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan who occupies the chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 707, offered by Senator Webb and myself, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I wish to offer my thanks as well to the distinguished majority leader of the Senate for his comments and his support of the amendment that I am about to address, as well as my friend and colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Virginia.

The war in Iraq has pushed the U.S. military to the breaking point. Our troops are being deployed longer than they should be, more frequently than they should be, and without full training and equipment. When we deploy our military, the President and the Congress have a responsibility, an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, fully trained, and fully equipped.

Senator Webb and I have introduced this amendment to protect and maintain the readiness and strength of our Armed Forces. Our amendment requires, with the force of law, that our

troops are only deployed to Iraq when they meet the military's own standards for readiness and deployment. We are not creating new standards. We are simply requiring that the military's own standards be met so that our men and women in uniform are sufficiently rested, ready, fully equipped, and fully trained when deployed.

That is the President's and the Congress's responsibility. No American wants to allow a single soldier to be deployed without meeting the required standards of readiness. Our amendment gives the President appropriate flexibility. Our amendment has a 4-month delay, before the provisions come into force, to give the President time to comply.

The President can waive the readiness requirement in case of a national emergency and under circumstances where a unit will receive its full complement of equipment in the theatre of operations. Our amendment exempts from the deployment cap all headquarters personnel and any other U.S. military personnel who are needed in Iraq to ensure continuity of mission between rotating forces.

This amendment will help our troops in a way that avoids having unintended operational consequences for our commanders in Iraq. Our amendment is about our troops. It is about readiness. It is about preventing our troops from being extended 3, 4, 5 or 6 months, as has been and is currently the case today. It is about ensuring a minimum time home between deployments.

This amendment is also about addressing deployment rotations of our troops in Iraq. Many are there for their third and fourth tours of duty. The United States will not be able to sustain the greatest all- volunteer military that the world has ever known if we allow the status quo to continue.

We are witnessing a clear and dangerous consequence of the administration's Iraq policy in Army recruitment. To meet recruitment targets, the military is being forced to issue waivers today. These waivers are for violent offenders, criminals, and for drug abuse. We are waving education requirements. The result is a defining down, a defining down of the standards of the U.S. Army. No institution can maintain any aspect of excellence by dumbing down its standards. If we do not stop this dangerous trend, it will affect the entire institution of our military, an institution that has taken great American leaders 30 years to build.

After the disaster of Vietnam, our military was shredded. Ask Colin Powell. Ask Norman Schwarzkopf. Ask other great military leaders who, in fact, after Vietnam said: No more. We are going to build the finest, greatest, most responsible, best force structure the world has ever known, and they did.

The deployment and operations tempo our military has had to endure in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 4 years cannot be sustained without inflicting unacceptable costs to our military power and our standing and influence around the world.

As the Washington Post reported today, General Barry McCaffrey, the former four-star commander of the U.S. Southern Command, tours in Vietnam, led a division in 1991 in the Gulf War, he now believes-- according to the article in today's Washington Post--that the U.S. military is in, his words, ``strategic peril.''

Yesterday, LTG Steven Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, testified before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. General Blum said the National Guard is, in his words:

. . . now in a degraded state back at home . . . The Army

National Guard has on-hand only 40 percent of its equipment

requirement . . . This hinders the ability of our units to

train. It also can slow our response to disasters and

terrorist incidents in the homeland.

In February, GEN Peter Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. General Schoomaker said: ``I am not satisfied with the readiness of our non- deployed forces.''

At the same hearing, GEN Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that today our Army units ``do not have the opportunity that they would normally have in a two-year cycle to train for the combined arms that they may be required to execute elsewhere in the world.''

On March 1, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves issued a report that concluded that: Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units are rated as--their words--``not ready.''

There have been repeated reports that senior Army officials now believe there are no nondeployed Army brigades who are rated as combat ready.

Now in our fifth year of the war in Iraq, the Congress must assert itself in a very real and responsible way to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities in matters of war as a coequal branch of our Government.

Over the last 4 years, the Congress has been absent from this responsibility. The American people now expect us to step into this tragedy that we have allowed to happen and begin to reshape our policy in Iraq by placing responsible conditions on our continued military involvement in this war in Iraq.

We are abusing our all-volunteer force in a dangerous and irresponsible way. We are abusing our people. We are abusing their families. We cannot continue to burden our military by continuing to place our military in the middle of a civil war in Iraq and loading onto them, continuing to load onto our military, expectations that they are incapable of fulfilling.

We are asking our military to accomplish things they cannot accomplish, not because they are not brave enough, not because they haven't fought valiantly--they have fought valiantly and we are proud of them--but it is new diplomatic initiatives that must now drive our policies in Iraq. There will not be--nor cannot be--a military victory in Iraq that will achieve peace or any form of stability or security for the Iraqi people or the Middle East.

The future of Iraq will be determined by the political accommodations of the people of Iraq which will result in a political resolution that will be supported by the Iraqi people, its regional neighbors, and other powers, including the United States. Our military should not be asked to do it all. Our military should not be expected to do it all. They have done more than their part.

Our men and women in uniform and their families deserve policy worthy of their sacrifice. I do not believe that to be the case today. Unfortunately, today the Senate will not vote on our amendment. But Senator Webb and I are committed to this amendment, and we will continue to push for a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks, and we will be back and we will be back.

We have been assured by the majority leader that we will get a vote on this amendment in the Senate. I conclude with this: I often ask myself, who speaks for the rifleman? Who cares about the rifleman? War is not a distraction. Those whom we ask to go fight and die are a very small percentage of our population whom we ask to carry all the burden and make all the sacrifices. But who speaks for them?

Of course, we have a responsibility for a larger geopolitical strategic policy for our interests. We have interests in Iraq. We have interests in the world. We have interests in the Middle East. But do we ever stop enough and listen enough and focus enough on these soldiers, these marines and their families who have nothing to say about policy; but they do what their country asks them to do.

When we frame policy in Washington, part of that prospective of framing that policy must include the right because it must ultimately get to this question: Is the cost worth what we are attempting to accomplish? Is the cost worth the high price we are asking others to pay?

Ultimately, that is the question we should always ask ourselves, those of us who have the privilege and the responsibility to frame policy--if Congress must be part of that--not just constitutionally but morally, but morally.

We each represent constituencies from around this country. We are close to those constituencies. We mirror those constituencies. We are products of those constituencies. We are close to those constituencies. We must do better for our military. We will pay a high price if we do not turn this around. We will pay a high price, indeed, not just in America's blood and treasure but for our future interests and security in the world.

We have not paid attention to our military, we have not paid attention to

the rifleman, and now is the time to start paying attention. I appreciate the time to offer this amendment with my friend and colleague who, as the majority leader noted minutes ago, was one of the most decorated veterans of the Vietnam war. He understands this issue very well. He understands it from the bottom up.

It does not mean Senator Webb and Senator Hagel are always right on anything. But we do try to bring a frame of reference to this debate that is relevant, that is important, and focus our attention on the very critical element of who we are. It is our people. Nothing is more important than our people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe we have until 2 o'clock; is that correct?

Seeing no other Senators on the floor wishing to speak on this amendment, unless the Senator from Virginia has additional colleagues that need time, I would, without objection, yield back our time.

With that understanding, and without objection, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President. I rise today to join Senator Durbin in introducing the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act.

Global climate change has implications beyond economic, environmental and energy policies. It has the potential to affect every aspect of our daily lives. It is because of the possible broad impact on U.S. interests at home and abroad that I have agreed to be the lead Republican co-sponsor on the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act.

Senator Durbin and I differ on policy initiatives designed to reduce the impact of climate change. We do agree, however, on the need to assess potential impacts of the changing climate on U.S. national security interests so that our Nation can develop responsible, forward- thinking policies that ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the American people.

There will always be uncertainties and incomplete information in climate science. This is the nature of scientific discovery; it is constantly evolving, constantly gaining new insights and explanations of our natural world. National policy must be crafted based on what is known, but also must be able to incorporate the uncertainties of what is yet to be learned.

Our bill provides a foundation for future policy options. It instructs the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a National Intelligence Estimate to assess the potential geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications for U.S. national security. It asks for a risk assessment of a broad array of impacts based on current scientific understanding. This bill is intended to gather information about the national security implications of projected climate change, so that in the future, Congress can develop policies that protect U.S. interests around the world.

I have said that the debate is not about whether we should take action, but rather what kind of action we should take. It would be irresponsible to attempt to develop a response to the physical effects of climate change without knowing what the potential consequences are. Our actions should always be based on a comprehensive base of scientific information and knowledge. Without this kind of information, we cannot effectively determine what the risks to U.S. national security will be. We cannot realistically design policies that mitigate these risks without this information. General Charles F. ``Chuck'' Wald, USAF, ret., former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command, has stated, ``This bipartisan legislation takes on an important emerging policy issue--the impact of climate change and national security. I support its call for a national intelligence estimate of the topic and authorizing the Secretary of Defense to conduct further research on the military impact of climate change.''

As I have said for many years, the way forward is to responsibly address the issue of climate change with a national strategy that incorporates economic, environmental and energy priorities. These issues are inextricably linked and changes to one will effect the other two. These priorities are also an integral part of U.S. national security. Risk assessment is essential to putting our national resources in the places where they will be most effective. This is even more important when assessing risk to national security. This legislation will provide information we need to continue to help make our country secure in the years to come.