Floor Statements

Yes. It is my understanding we had up to 30 minutes. It is not my intention to take that much time, but there might be someone else on our side who will want some of the time, in which case I will yield to them. So it could take that long.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his cooperation. As I said, if we have any other Members of our side who wish to come down and talk about this, there was that length of time set aside. So I reserve that time for anybody else who wants to speak. If anybody is listening and they wish to use some of this 30 minutes, they are welcome to do it.

I returned 2 days ago from Iraq. It is my 18th trip in the area, in the theater. Sometimes it was Afghanistan and other areas, but it was in that zone there. I wished to take this opportunity to kind of show where we are today, how we got here, and where we are going to go. Some good things are happening over there. A lot of people don't believe it, and some people don't want to believe it.

The first thing I wish to do is try to give an indication as to where we started and how this whole thing started. We keep hearing quotes from people--and misquotes--such as General Cody. He is very certain the Army--even though it is stressed--the soldiers themselves are in a position to continue as they have been. But there is a problem. I think the world needs to know how we got into this problem in the first place.

It began in the 1990s during the Clinton administration. I have a chart. When I make this statement, people tend not to believe it is true. At that time, we downgraded the military, during those 8 years in the 1990s, by approximately $412 billion. If you look at

where we were during the beginning of the Clinton administration, that would be this black line on the chart. If you merely put into this chart the inflation rate and kept the funding of the military at a constant level, it would be this black line. However, the red line down here was the Clinton budget. The budget came in--if you added up all 8 years--at $412 billion below what the static budget would have been with inflation added.

I say that, and it sounds a little bit like something people are hearing for the first time. Yet it should not be the first time. I know there wasn't one month that went by in the 1990s that I didn't come down to the Senate floor and say this euphoric attitude that the Cold War is over and we don't need a military anymore is something that is going to come back to haunt us. Well, it has come back to haunt us. This is the problem we have. It is very much like during the Carter administration in the 1970s, when President Ronald Reagan inherited a hollow force when he took office. It was.

When you are decreasing the funding of the military over 8 years, you are dropping behind in your modernization program, and it means your force strength will be dropped, and it was a downgrading of about 40 percent.

One of the things that concerned me at that time was there is this feeling among the American people that we have the best of everything; that when our kids go into combat, they are armed and equipped with the very best equipment that is out there. Unfortunately, that is not true. It should be true. I think the American people would demand--if they knew we were having these problems--that we would give our kids the very best of everything.

I have always been very appreciative of GEN John Jumper, who, in 1998, might been the Vice Chief of the Air Force. He stood up and said Russia was making a strike vehicle--he was referring to the SU-25 and SU-30 vehicles--and selling them all over the world to countries such as China, or potential adversaries, which are better than our best strike vehicles, the F-15 and the F-16. In some areas, they were better. He talked about the stealth capabilities of what the Russians were making as opposed to what we had. At that time, there was one sale of around 240 of these vehicles to the Chinese. So they had equipment that was better than ours.

Another example is the NLOS cannon. This is the best thing we have. The Paladin is World War II technology. With the Paladin, after every shot of this cannon, you have to swab the breach. You saw pictures of this in prior wars. But this isn't acceptable because there are five countries making a better one than we are making, including South Africa.

So what we have been attempting to do, after this period of time was over, was to start upgrading, modernizing, and increasing the force strength and capability of our American military. Nonetheless, it is very significant that people realize that when this administration took over, and 9/11 came about, this was the condition of our military. It should not have been that way. The terrorist movement was active through the 1990s and during the Clinton administration.

In February of 1993, there was a car bomb planted in the underground parking garage below the World Trade Center. We knew that, and that was prior to 9/11. In June of 1996, Khobar Towers, we remember, were bombed by Hezbollah, with intelligence pointing to support by al-Qaida. The embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in 1998, were blown up, and that was done by the terrorists. We all remember what happened in Yemen, when a small craft went into the USS Cole and killed a number of Americans. That was another terrorist attack.

So this terrorism was going on all during the time we were downsizing our military. The next thing we find out is we are in a position where we have a down-sized military, and 9/11 comes along and 3,000 Americans are killed by terrorists, and we found out other terrorist attacks were planned at that time. That is when this all started.

I have to say--because right now I am missing a hearing, which I will go to when my remarks are finished--in talking about this stressed situation of our Army, people need to understand how we got into this situation. After my 18th trip over there, and every time in talking to the young people over there, yes, they are stressed and their families are stressed and, yes, they have had more deployments, and they should be 12 months instead of 15 months but they understand this has to be done. We cannot compromise our victory. So we went in after 9/11 for three reasons.

First, we went in to liberate Iraq from a tyrannical leader. I remember so well in 1991, after the first Iraq war, I had an occasion to be on the first freedom flight. It was 1991. There were nine of us, Democrats and Republicans. We were the first ones, in fact, to go to Kuwait City, but the Iraqis did not even know at that time the war was over. They were burning oilfields. The day would turn into night because of the smoke. That was the environment we were in at that time.

We had a person of nobility in Kuwait who had a palace by the Persian Gulf who was with us. He had a 7-year-old daughter. They went with us. Alexander Haig, Tony Cuello was one of the party who went over. At that time, he was, I believe, the Democratic whip of the House of Representatives. So it was a mixture of people. This man of nobility and his daughter wanted to see what their house looked like, if it was torn up during the first gulf war. When we got there, we found out that Saddam Hussein had used it for a headquarters. I took the little girl up to her bedroom--she wanted to see her little animals--only to find they had used her bedroom for a torture chamber, and there were body parts just scattered around in different areas. When we saw this, we realized what an animal this man we were dealing with was.

After 1991, we went back several different times, only to find that Saddam Hussein went after everybody who he suspected had been opposed to him during that first war, and he took care of them in different ways. He tortured thousands of people to death. You have to have gone over there, as I did, and looked into the graves and seen people who had been buried alive. His sons would raid weddings that were taking place. They would rape the bride, and then they would bury her alive. People who were going to be tortured to death by Saddam Hussein were begging to be dropped into the vats of acid head first so they would die quicker, or into the grinders, or the limbs that were cut off.

We really cannot draw a distinction between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein in terms of the fact they are terrorists and they have no regard for human life. We just recently found an al-Qaida torture manual. The very things Saddam Hussein was doing in torturing people, they are doing now. Take a look at this chart. They are using flames on the throat; cutting the feet open so if they live, they will never be able to walk again; hanging by the arms while they had electrodes going in; drills used on their hands; and, of course, chopping off their limbs. This is a manual teaching them how to do it. We watched this and saw this was happening. I would think any reasonable person would say that alone would have been enough to go in to stop that reign of tyranny that was taking place at that time. But there are other reasons too.

The second reason is there were training camps located in Iraq in places such as Sargot, Ramadi, Samarra, and one of them was in Salmon Pac. Salmon Pac is a community in Iraq where they have a fuselage of a 707 on the ground, and they were teaching people how to hijack airplanes. We will never know whether the perpetrators of 9/11 were trained in Salmon Pac. We don't know that. We never will know. Nonetheless, those are four training camps in Iraq. They are all closed now. They are not training anymore. That alone is certainly itself enough reason to have gone in there.

The third reason is to help the Iraqi people create a free and democratic country. People say: Why do we care about the Iraqis? We have problems at home. Why are we spending all this money? Why do we care about what kind of democracy they have? And they thought it was impossible to start one, anyway. One reason is, if they do not do it, it is going to be a problem area for terrorists in the Middle East until they are fighting on our soil. The troops who are over there know this.

I just got back. I talked with many troops. In fact, now we have the Oklahoma 45th over there, and we visited with most of them. They understand why they are there.

What would happen? There were a lot of surrender resolutions, a lot of cut-and-run resolutions that got a lot of attention in this body. I can remember when moveon.org had the big ad campaign portraying David Petraeus, one of our great American heroes, as ``General Betray Us.'' It was unconscionable. There were resolutions to disavow what he said. There were 25 Members of this Senate body who opposed those resolutions.

When the terrorists see this, they are hoping and praying that we, the Americans, are going to leave Iraq. On August 28, 2007, Ahmadinejad made a statement. He was referring to these resolutions that are going to draw our people out of Iraq. He said:

Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of

course, we are prepared to fill that gap. . . .

We are talking about Ahmadinejad. That is why the Iraqis are getting so cooperative with us. They don't want that vacuum filled.

I was talking the other day with BG Jimmy Cash. He is retired. He is the former command director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex in the late 1980s. He said: I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles every day, all day long for months. They killed hundreds of thousands of their own people. They were fighting for control of the Middle East.

Which reminds me, when all these people are talking about weapons of mass destruction, we knew they had weapons of mass destruction then. We knew they were killing hundreds of thousands of their own people in the north, the Kurds, and they were using weapons of mass destruction to send chemical warheads up there that have the effect of burning people to death from the inside out, the most painful thing--women, babies, everybody, thousands and thousands of them.

Anyway, if he were to fill that vacuum, we do not know how long it will take for America to be a target on our soil.

If we look at what is working, one of the things I noticed on the many trips I have taken over there--about a year ago, a little more than 13 months ago, the surge began. That was General Petraeus. What did he say? GEN David Petraeus said we have to go in there with a surge capability in certain areas. He was concerned about some of the areas around the triangle. As we went in there and positioned ourselves, we found that he was right in his analysis as to where we needed to have more troops stationed--in Fallujah and Ramadi. Remember, just about 2 years ago, they declared that Ramadi would become the terrorist capital of the world. Now Ramadi is under total security, not by the United States but by the Iraqi security forces. So we have watched what has happened since that time.

One of the reasons the surge has worked so successfully is that we have had the religious leaders realizing that if we leave, Iran will come in and fill the vacuum, and they cannot have that happen. So the religious leaders, the imams, the clerics started giving positive messages about the United States of America.

A year ago, we had our defense intelligence attending the weekly meetings of the mosques. I think they meet every Friday. At that time, 85 percent of the messages that were given in the mosques by the clerics and the imams were anti-American messages. As of April of last year, almost a year ago, there had been virtually none. They are all now positive messages. What does that mean? It means that the Iraqi citizens have now--just like, Mr. President, anyplace in your State of Arkansas or elsewhere in our communities, we have Neighborhood Watch programs. Now they have them. They have their own citizens going in with bait cans, drawing circles around the undetonated IEDs so our troops will not be killed. We watched in Anbar all the incidents. They have been down from 40 a day to 10 a day. We have seen economic growth, the markets open and crowded. The large project in the Sunni Triangle is now back on track. They are going to have the capability to help their people now.

The Iraqi Army is starting to perform really well. This surprises a lot of people because they don't think the Iraqi security forces have the capability of being the type of soldiers they are today. We saw this the other day. In fact, I was over there the other day in Bucca in Basra when they went in and took care of the problems so we didn't have to do it. This is what we are seeing.

If you have any question that it is true, all you have to do is look at some of the people who never really wanted to be friends of the Bush administration who were opposed to the liberation of Iraq. One such person was Katie Couric. This shocked everybody when she was interviewed. That was in September 2007 by Bob Schieffer. This was live on TV. She had made a trip, after she had been criticizing the war, criticizing the Bush administration, criticizing the whole liberation effort. She went over and came back and said:

Well, I was surprised, you know, after I went to Eastern

Baghdad. I was taken to the Allawi market--

I have been there also--

which was near Haifa Street which was the scene of that very

bloody gun battle back in January, and you know this market

seemed to be thriving and there were a lot of people out and

about. A lot of family-owned businesses and vegetables stalls

and so you do see signs of life that seem to be normal . . .

the situation is improving.

That is not me talking, that is Katie Couric, whom we least expected that from.

We see these things happening. I always make a point when I visit with people in the markets, if I see someone carrying a little baby, I will go in there intentionally without any kind of armament, with an interpreter. The interpreter will tell us just what they are saying. And people with young kids love the Americans.

I have to say this too. We are going to see, and have seen already, a lot of accusations that we in the United States, in our Department of Defense, CIA, and the rest of agencies, are guilty of all kinds of torture. It is true that back in Abu Ghraib, when it first happened, there were some people there who did the wrong thing. I think there were 11 of them altogether. They were doing some things that were perhaps not the kinds of things we would endorse. That was taken care of by the U.S. Army. They took care of it. But that came out, and people started talking about what the Americans were doing. Yet look what is in their manual, the types of inhumane torture.

I went to Bucca. Bucca is where we have the most detainees in Iraq. I was wanting to find out for sure by going around and interviewing detainees. I interviewed, I would say, about 40 or 50 of them. I picked them out myself. I took an interpreter. Each one said: We never were tortured when we were captured. We have been detained. We will be going back to where we came from. They have become real supporters of the United States. They were treated right. They were treated humanely. They are teaching them to read. They are teaching them to study their Koran. They are teaching them carpentry and other trades because one of the biggest problems they have--it is easy to recruit people when there is total unemployment. The unemployment rate is so high. They have to feed their families some way. Now we have trained them, and they are able to go back and get jobs and take care of their families without having to do it through the military.

I just say to you, Mr. President, since this whole situation began-- and I happened to be in Fallujah during each of the two elections that took place, and I watched the Iraqi security forces go down to vote when they knew they were risking their lives. They voted the day before so they could offer security. I watched those people risking their lives--remember the purple finger--knowing their lives were at risk when they voted. This is the democracy they have been looking for. Democracy has been working. I came back this last time thinking the surge has been progressing so well; if we just keep it up, really good things are happening over there.

Considering we started with a downgrading of some $412 million in our military, then 9/11 came and we were forced into a war as a result of that, we have done so well.

Mr. President, I was a part of the draft many years ago, and I was a believer for quite a number of years,

until the first gulf war, that we should have mandatory service because I know what a great thing it did for my life. But when you go over today and you see an all-volunteer force and see what they are capable of doing and what they have done, you come back so proud that they started out down here with very little to work with, and they have been able to sustain it.

Are they overworked right now? Are they deployed too often and too long--15 months? Yes, they are. It looks as though we are going to be able to drop that down to 12 months. But the troops themselves say: Whatever it takes, we are going to do this. They know the alternative. The alternative is the war will be waged on American soil. We don't want that to happen.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask for the regular order. Are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, on February 6 of 2007, the administration announced their intention to create a new unified command, the United States African Command, or AFRICOM. The U.S.-Africa command is a partnership between military and civilian communities that will focus on existing programs such as the training of peacekeeping forces that enable African nations and regional organizations to improve security on the continent. The National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, said:

AFRICOM is a command that would be established for Africa .

. . It would be a partnership, really, between military and

civilians, and its principal focus would be to continue some

of the activities that we are already doing to try and train

peacekeeping forces so that countries in Africa and regional

organizations in Africa can take more of a role in dealing

with the conflicts and the problems on the continent.

It is ironic that we have these COMs, these commands all over the world. Yet Africa is divided into three commands: the Pacific Command, the European Command, and the Central Command. Africa has now become, in my opinion, the most significant continent that we need to pay more attention to.

I think I am uniquely qualified to talk about this. Two days ago, I made my 97th African country visit. The last country we were in this last week--there were some five countries--was Ethiopia, a very significant part of it.

I also started my efforts in Africa long before we had a lot of military interest in Africa. Mine was more of a mission type of thing. I became very familiar with all of Africa. I now have had an opportunity to sit down and visit personally and develop intimate relations with the Presidents of some 28 African nations, their Parliaments and many of the leaders there.

As a matter of fact, I was in Ethiopia 7 years ago, when we came upon a little girl. She had nothing. The little girl was an orphan. She was 3 days old. She wasn't healthy--didn't look like she would live at all. They put her into an orphanage, where they did the very best with what they had. Like so many orphanages, she was actually put in a bucket. They had this cute little girl in there, feeding her intravenously through her scalp at the time.

Anyway, there is a long story that goes with that, but the short version is my wife and I have been married 48 years and have 20 kids and grandkids and one of our daughters, Molly Rapert, had only boys. She wanted a little girl so she adopted this girl. This is my adopted African granddaughter.

It is kind of funny. She was found abandoned as an orphan in Addis Abba, in Ethiopia. Yet this little girl has turned into quite a genius. In fact, 3 weeks ago at the National Prayer Breakfast I was in charge of the African dinner. I say to the Presiding Officer, this little granddaughter of mine was the speaker that night--7 years old. I have more than a passing interest in Africa. It is a family interest too.

During my time on the continent, I have seen the significant and strategic place in the world that Africa holds because of the sheer size of Africa. People don't realize, if we go from Mauritania to Ethiopia, east to west, it takes 7 hours flying. If you go from north to south, from Cape Town up to Algeria, it is 9 hours. It is a huge continent.

The rest of the world is now realizing its importance. I think our timing is very good. It is only a year ago that we embarked upon this idea that we were going to be holding up Africa and supporting it. A lot of people don't realize the significance of Africa, that Africa is the area where, as the squeeze takes place in the Middle East on terrorism, a lot of it goes down through the Horn of Africa, through Djibouti and that area, and spreads out throughout Africa.

Other countries are realizing how important it is. They are doing something about it. The new French President, Sarkozy, said during a recent trip to South Africa that Africa should have at least one permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council and that France would no longer accept major world affairs being discussed without a leading African country being involved.

There are many countries, such as China, expanding influence in Africa. I can tell you that, as you go through Africa, anything that is new and shiny--a bridge, a colosseum, anything such as that that is given to them by China. China is trying to get a foothold there.

China has the same problem in its dependency on outside sources for oil as we do. They are beating us to some of these areas in Africa. Huge reserves are being developed in Africa. All that is very significant.

Currently, over 700 Chinese state companies conduct business in Africa, making China the continent's third largest trading partner. The United States and France are first and second.

I have also seen, in my many travels to Africa, the great strength and perseverance in the African people, in their fight to overcome great obstacles such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, poverty, wars. In order to achieve security and stability, we have to work to eliminate the root causes of poverty and poor governance. Fighting terrorism in the region has become critical. Examples of terrorism we remember--it was not too long ago the bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and in Kenya and more recently the bombings in Morocco and Algeria. African countries have become more vulnerable as al-Qaida has infiltrated into the Horn of Africa.

As the surge is working--yesterday after leaving Africa, I went to the European command and looked at the progress we are making. We were, yesterday afternoon, in Iraq. Good things are happening there. The surge is clearly working. As the surge works, what happens is, as I described, a lot of the terrorist activities go down into the most convenient place and the most vulnerable and that is the continent of Africa.

It has been reported terrorist networks in Somalia and Eritrea work together, increasing their capability. If you go into northern Uganda-- this is something very few people know about. Everyone knows about the problems in the Sudan and many of the other areas of Africa. But how many people know the children's Army being developed by a man named Joseph Kony. The LRA, the Lord's Resistance Army, for 30 years now they have been taking kids out of villages, little 11-, 12-, 13-, 14-year- old kids, teaching them to be soldiers. Once they learn to be soldiers, they have them take an automatic weapon and go back to their villages and murder their family. If they don't do this, they maim them, they cut their ears and lips off. This has been going on for a long time. These horrible things are going on, and a lot of that is because we, the free world, have not given our attention to Africa that we should have a long time ago. We see the conflicts in Kenya taking place right now, the young democracy that has unfortunately exploded into tribal conflict. More than 1,000 people after the December election were killed. Last month, there were 500 European Union troops who were sent to protect Chad's capital from being taken over by the rebels; 3,700 EU troops are presently protecting thousands of refugees along Chad's border with Sudan as well as the neighboring Central African Republic. In February, the United Nations ordered its regional force to withdraw to Ethiopia after the Eritrean Government cut their field supplies.

Let's keep in mind it was Eritrea, when we had the problem in Somalia, that went down and sided with the terrorists. It was, of course, Ethiopia that joined us, as well as other countries such as Uganda and Burundi.

The United States has a long history offering support, helping establish security on the African Continent. Thomas Jefferson was the first President to send American troops to the coast of Africa to ward off the Barbary pirates plaguing the Mediterranean and threatening the security of Europe and the new colonies. This is kind of funny. That was Thomas Jefferson. Today the same thing is happening in the Sea of Guinea. They have new discoveries of oil so there is pirating going on, and we are over there trying to help the surrounding countries defend themselves. This command is going to go a long ways toward doing that.

We continue to support African nations in the area for security and stability and health and education initiatives. In 2003, the United States helped to bring stability to Liberia. In Djibouti, the Combined Joint Task Force for the Horn of Africa has been involved in developmental activities, including building schools and digging wells. I have had occasion to be in Eritrea several times. It is probably the least known country in Africa. It is becoming better known because of all the atrocities that are taking place there. The administration recently pledged $15 billion through the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief and significantly is contributing to the fight on AIDS.

People complain: Why are we spending money to help Africans on HIV/ AIDS? That is their problem. They are dealing with their problems themselves.

I had occasion last week to be with the First Lady of Zambia. The First Ladies all throughout Africa are the ones who are doing the most to combat HIV/AIDS. The First Lady of Zambia has put together a group of First Ladies who are significantly having an impact. President Gbagbo's wife Simone in Cote d'Ivoire is very actively attacking the problem there. Janet Museveni in Uganda has been honored in the United States for her work on HIV/AIDS. Most recently, the one I think is really doing the best job is the wife of the Prime Minister of Ethiopia. Prime Minister Zenawi's wife Azeb is heading up a group that is having great positive impact on HIV/AIDS. So they are helping themselves.

The United States is partnering with African countries in effective programs such as IMET. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and it is one of the strongest programs we have to develop close relations with other countries. It is a military program where we invite the officers to come over and get trained with our officers. Once they are trained with our officers, that develops a bond that stays there from then on. If we don't do it, other countries such as China are willing to.

We have dramatically improved our train-and-equip sections so that we can help commanders in the field train and equip other countries. Primarily, my concern is in Africa, and that is happening. Those programs are proving to be vital resources by aiding developing countries in the professionalism of their militaries.

Africa is an avenue that the United States can use to aid Africa as it continues to grow into a secure democratic continent with a growing economy. Africa's challenges, its growing strategic significance, and the potential impact of failing states and ungoverned areas on U.S. security will require increased emphasis on interagency cooperation.

Currently, the African Continent is divided between three commands. You have the Pacific Command, the Central Command, and the European Command. The division of responsibilities has caused problems in coordinating activities and creating seams between commands, especially in key areas of instability or of conflict. One seam creating difficulty lies between Sudan--under the CENTCOM, or the Central Command--and Chad, immediately adjoining it, and the Central African Republic. The last one is under the European Command. They are right next to each other but under two different commands. Bureaucratically, it is a nightmare; you can't coordinate activities.

The recent conflict in Chad and the continuing conflict in Sudan emphasize the need for the United States to respond to these conflicts and to be unified. As AFRICOM becomes operational, these divided responsibilities

will no longer exist. It is set up to be operational by October of this year.

We have a great guy who is going to be commanding general. He has already been confirmed, GEN William ``Kip'' Ward. Kip Ward's military service includes tours all over the world but with a real emphasis and interest in Africa. He was confirmed by the Senate in September. General Ward has expressed a vision of hope for Africa and for the role the United States plays in that vision. General Ward believes in the need to address crisis situations before they arise and to address them at the microlevel, at the perspective of the individual victim, which is critical in bringing about solutions. AFRICOM's aim will be a preventative approach on the local level, giving hope in times of adversity and a way forward for the future in both security and development. General Ward is the right guy for the job. He has stressed that the purpose of the command is to enable African solutions to African challenges, to support African leadership rather than usurping or suppressing African leadership and sovereignty. This is very important.

It was the right military decision for us in the United States to become interested in helping Africans develop five African commands. These would be north, south, east, west, and central. Only two of the locations have been determined right now. But we make it very clear to Africa, we are not doing this. We are not the ones who are putting the brigades in there. We are helping them to put their own brigades there so they can take care of their own problems.

In Somalia, African countries such as Ethiopia, Burundi, and Uganda have sent in troops to help stabilize the government there. We couldn't have done that without the support of Africans. The African Union troops have recently arrived in the Comoros Islands near Madagascar to help its military regain control of an island where a renegade leader has declared himself President. The development of the African standby brigades is a good example of how we are helping them to help themselves.

So AFRICOM is expected to become fully operational the first of October 2008. It is going to be at least temporarily located in Stuttgart, Germany. My personal preference would be to have it someplace in Africa. Right now, there is some resistance to that, so we will keep it in Stuttgart for the time being.

In fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated $75 million to the command, and in fiscal year 2009, the President has requested $389 million. I know this sounds like a lot of money, but I can't think of anyplace where we can actually save money more than by helping the Africans build up themselves and bring their allegiance in to us. We have to support AFRICOM with adequate funding to enable the command to be fully equipped to face the challenges they have only in Africa.

I already introduced a resolution that is S. Res. 480. I am joined by about 12 or 14 Members. I invite my friends from both sides of the aisle who have a heart for Africa and believe in what we are doing to join in this resolution. The resolution encourages the Department of Defense and the State Department and USAID to work cooperatively with our African friends to bring hope to the continent. So often, when you try to put together a program such as train and equip, the State Department seems to think that the Department of Defense is taking away some of its power. It becomes a turf battle. We don't want that to happen. It looks as if it will not happen in this case. The resolution emphasizes that AFRICOM is expected to support, not shape, U.S. foreign policy in Africa so that we would be working together.

Finally, I encourage my friends in Africa to work together with AFRICOM to find solutions to issues facing Africans today. Under General Ward's leadership, I believe AFRICOM can provide that hope to the people, and I believe that is going to happen.

I was in a Stuttgart meeting, the first official meeting of a Member of Congress with the new African Command or the new AFRICOM. I became convinced, looking around the table at all the people, this is the first time you see many of the bureaucracies sitting around the same table. This didn't happen before because it was not a unified command. This unified command will allow that to happen.

There is no place in the world that needs more attention by us right now. When you talk about the war on terror, the next area we will have to concentrate on is Africa. By taking these steps now, Africans will be prepared to handle their own problems and not have us do it for them.

I am very pleased with the successes we have had. We have been talking about a new African Command now for about 10 years. Finally, it will become a reality this year.

We need to encourage a lot of people to start participating, maybe to the same level I am participating with the country of Africa. It is a beautiful thing that is happening right now. I believe we are going to make great progress as a result of the African Command.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4239 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, it is my intention to withdraw this amendment, but I wish to use this moment to serve notice that this is something that not just myself but several of us are concerned about, particularly those of us on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

We have gone through a period of time, up until the early nineties, when our defense spending was somewhere around--in fact, for the entire 100 years in the 20th century, it averaged 5.7 percent of GDP. At the end of the nineties, it got down to just under 3 percent. If we are to anticipate the needs we will have in the future, it is going to be necessary to have some kind of a floor.

What this amendment says is we will have to start the process by putting 4 percent of the GDP into the defense system. It is one that would accomplish three things.

First, it would allow us to build the next generation of weapons and equipment. As we know, we are doing one weapon right now that will take the next 30 years.

Second, it will add predictability to the industrial base.

And third, it sends a clear message to our military, allies, and enemies that we are committed to the security of our Nation.

It shocks a lot of people when they find out we have platform weapons systems that are not as good as our potential adversaries. This would correct that problem.

Amendment No. 4239 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing great concern for families struggling during these tough economic times. Costs are going up. Prices for everyday goods are increasing. Food costs are skyrocketing. Heating and electricity prices are on the rise. The price of gas is breaking all-time records. The family budget is being strapped. We all agree this is a time of great economic uncertainty.

But we disagree about how Congress should respond to this situation. What is the Federal Government's role? I will tell you precisely how we should not respond--when the costs of food and fuel for families are going through the roof. We should not add to that burden by increasing the cost of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that is precisely what my friends on the Democrat side plan to do with their budget. With the family budget under serious threat, the other side of the aisle plans to expand the federal budget--at the expense of the family budget. I say to my friends: if there was ever a time not to raise taxes, if there was ever a time not to increase the costs people pay for the federal government, that time is now. Yet this budget contains the largest tax increase in America's history.

We all hear about rising energy costs. However, families are also taking another big hit in the pocketbook with food prices that are increasing at their fastest rates since 1990. Prices for many groceries are rising at double-digit rates. Milk prices increased 26 percent last year. The price for eggs is up 40 percent. Cheese prices have doubled from a year ago. Beef prices are up 50 percent. Flour is up about 20 percent since last year. Taken as a whole, food and beverage prices are rising at 4 percent a year, which is the fastest rate of increase in 20 years. All indicators point to this trend continuing, if not worsening.

Food, which accounts for about 13 percent of the family budget, is not the only expense that has seen dramatic increases. Energy costs now consume about 4 percent of a family's budget. On Monday, gas prices set a record high of $3.227 per gallon--while oil prices broke the all- time, inflation-adjusted record and rose to $108 per barrel. The cost of heating and powering a home is rising. The Energy Department is forecasting sustained increases in the demand and prices of electricity and residential energy usage. It is important to remember that even modest increases in home energy prices have a significant impact on the budgets of middle-income Americans.

Undoubtedly, the costs of many items in the family budget are increasing. In this context, Democrats are rolling out their budget plan, and what do we see? Unbelievably, we see plans to radically increase the cost that families will pay for the Federal Government. With the cost of so many household essentials skyrocketing, why are we raising the cost of the Federal Government? This is the last thing the economy needs. And it is the last thing families need.

This year, the Federal Government will tax $21,604 per household, spend

$25,117 per household, and run a deficit of $3,513 per household. But it is not enough. It never is.

The budget we are considering contains a $1.2 trillion tax hike. On top of the thousands of dollars families are already paying for the Federal Government, on top of food costs and energy costs reaching stratospheric levels, the majority party is rolling out a budget plan with record tax increases. This budget plan increases taxes by more than $2,300 each year for 43 million families with children. $2,300 in addition to what these families are already paying.

I watch my colleagues on the other side come down to the floor one after another and complain that the Federal Government does not have enough money. Might I remind my friends that this budget is a $3 trillion budget. This government spends more money than the entire economies of most countries. In 2006, only two countries had entire economies--every good and service produced within their borders--bigger than $3 trillion. One was the United States. The other was Japan at $4 trillion. Germany ranked third in world GDP. Amazingly, my colleagues have proposed a budget that is bigger than Germany's entire economy in 2006.

Under the Democrat's budget, 43 million families face tax increases of $2,300. What could $2,300 buy for an American family? I started by talking about food costs, which are rising at the fastest rate in two decades. $2,300 could buy 8 month's worth of groceries for a family. Then I talked about record-setting energy costs; $2,300 could buy a family's electricity and home heating oil for an entire year.

Now more than ever, we need to protect the family budget from the Federal budget. The Democrat budget does exactly the opposite, containing massive tax increases. It deserves to be defeated.

While the family budget is under threat by Democrat's nondefense spending, our Nation is under threat by global terrorist forces. We must support our courageous men and women in uniform by adequately funding defense spending.

The greatest trust placed upon Congress by the American people is to provide for their security by maintaining a strong national defense. It is a trust we cannot betray. However, we are rapidly reaching a crossroads--a nexus that will determine America's security for the next several decades.

To better understand where we are today, it is important to understand how we arrived at this point. This Nation's historical pattern has been one of a small professional military in peacetime, rapidly supplemented by a mobilization of civilians during war, followed by a rapid demobilization at the war's end. This demobilization or downsizing occurs within a context of balancing risks and threats. The trick is to retain and fund a force of sufficient size and capability to deter or dissuade, and, if necessary, to fight and win.

In the late 1970s, the military of the United States was a hollow force--low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and unable to maintain the equipment it possessed. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan expanded the military budget, increased troops size, reenergized weapons procurement, and revived our intelligence capabilities . . . returning this country back to its superpower status. The Cold War officially ended in 1990.

Much of this Nation's firepower is a legacy of the Reagan years. With the demise of the Soviet Union, our military was downsized to counter a ``perceived'' diminished world threat. Unfortunately, the global strategic environment has since then become increasingly complex, dynamic, lethal, and uncertain.

During the Clinton administration, I was on the floor every 2 weeks warning that we would live to regret the massive cuts and procurement holiday of the 1990's. I believe one of the great tragedies of our national security history is the military spending during this time passed.

Between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 2001, the DOD budget experienced a downward trend, $313.3 billion less than if it stayed true to the rate of inflation. Clinton's proposed budget was $99 billion less than what Congress believed defense required. The Clinton/ Gore administration cut the defense budget by 40 percent, reducing it to its lowest percentage of the gross national product since before World War II.

As a result of these budgetary cuts, today's force is half the size of the military in the 1990s. The Army was reduced from 18 divisions to 10, the Air Force from 37 tactical air wings to 20, and the Navy from 568 ships in the late 1980s to only 276 today.

As our forces decreased in size, the number and lengths of deployments increased and international terrorism took the forefront. Afghanistan was used as a training ground for terrorists and the Taliban regime allowed al-Qaida unfettered mobility.

On February 26, 1993, a car bomb was planted in the underground parking garage below the World Trade Center, foreshadowing the 9/11 attacks. On June 25, 1996, the Khobar towers were bombed by Hezbollah, with intelligence pointing to support by al-Qaida. On August 7, 1998, there were simultaneous bombings at the U.S. embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. On October 12, 2000 suicide bombers used a boat to attack the USS Cole while it was moored in Yemen.

America's response was comparatively restrained and, at best, inconsistent. Operation Infinite Reach included cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan, but there was no real change. This inadequate response has been cited as a factor emboldening al-Qaida to undertake further plans. WMD proliferation throughout the world reached an unprecedented level.

The Chinese government learned that it could rely on our acquiescence. They transferred prohibited weapons technology to North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other countries, threatened to absorb Taiwan, and intimidated our regional treaty allies, South Korea, and Japan. During this period, our country concluded, as Secretary Gates put it, ``that the nature of man and the world had changed for the better, and turned inward, unilaterally disarming and dismantling institutions important to our national security--in the process, giving ourselves a so-called ``peace'' dividend . . .''

We were wrong. The reason I talk about this is because it highlights what can happen when we don't adequately fund our military and provide it with stability and predictability about its future. The United States must build and sustain military capabilities required to respond to possible future threats across the spectrum of conflict.

The next war will not be like the past one--history has taught us this. We cannot assume freedom of the seas, freedom of air and space, and freedom of maneuver on the ground. In order to provide stability, America must be able to deter or defeat any threat, be it an insurgency or a challenge from a near-peer competitor. In order to provide this stability, Congress needs to guarantee a baseline in funding.

Guaranteeing a baseline budget, one that is indexed to our GDP, is the best way to accomplish this. Historically, defense spending was 4.6 percent in 1991 during the gulf war; 8.9 percent in 1968 during Vietnam; and 11.7 percent in 1953 during the Korean war. Across the last century, it has averaged about 5.7 percent. The fiscal year 2009 defense budget is $541.1 billion--approximately 3.3 percent of GDP.

We can no longer afford to kid ourselves that we are still sending our sons and daughters out with the best equipment available. In some cases, we simply can't match the quality of our competitors. In other cases, while we may have developed a superior system, we have restricted the quantity to a point where many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are forced into battle with the older, inferior equipment.

Many other countries are able to buy avionics, airframes, and weapons--often mixed and matched together--to create aircraft that rival our current F-15, F-16, or Navy and Marine F-18, such as Russian Su-30s and 35s, or upgraded MiG-21s and MiG-29s. We can solve this problem if we decide to make the investment in our F-22 and F-35 programs, and buy the number needed to ensure American air superiority in the future. Despite the Air Force's requirement for 381 F-22 Raptors, it is now slated to only obtain 183.

Some systems in the Army are overmatched by systems sold by other countries. Four other countries have

better artillery systems than the U.S. The British AS90, the Russian 2S19, the South African G6, and the German PzH 2000 are all superior in rate of fire and range to our Paladin. Though we are currently investing in Future Combat Systems, the Army has been forced to extend the production time by 4 years.

Our Navy and Marine Corps are being challenged by a variety of threats ranging from near-peer competitors, to non-state and transnational actors, to rogue nations and pirates. While trying to sustain and recapitalize their ships, submarines, aircraft, and ground equipment, they are being challenged across the globe. Russian and Chinese submarines continue to threaten our forces with China operating over 60 submarines. China, Japan, Australia, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh, and South and North Korea either now have or are planning to acquire submarines. While most do not pose much of a threat to our more advanced fleet, that dynamic is changing. It is simply unacceptable that we have been forced into this predicament.

One can never predict future threats accurately. Our level of defense spending must consider the resources needed to meet current and future threats. A Pentagon official claimed 15 years ago that in 10 years we would no longer need a standing army. This is not the only example of flawed strategic thinking. We weren't able to predict the fall of the Soviet Union, or the rise in asymmetric warfare that we are currently engaged in. We built a force for 50 years that was predicated upon the idea that we would be fighting a conventional war against the Soviets in the heart of Europe. It doesn't matter how great our military leaders or intelligence is, our strategic thinking will always be imperfect. There will always be unknowns.

Tying defense spending to GDP accomplishes three things. First, it will allow our military to develop and build the next generation of weapons and equipment: Weapons and equipment that will be needed to maintain national security for the next 30 years; that will provide increased capability across the spectrum of warfare; and that have lower lifetime costs and increased readiness rates.

Second, it provides predictability for our military and industrial base. It allows the Department of Defense and the Services to plan and fund their acquisition programs based on a minimum known budget. We are no longer able to complete purchases of large acquisition programs in 3 to 5 years. To recapitalize the entire Air Force tanker fleet will take over 30 years. Programming from a known minimum budget for the out years will translate to less reprogramming and more stability for thousands of businesses throughout the United States at decreased costs.

Finally, a commitment to a minimum defense budget sends a clear signal to our military, allies, and enemies alike that we are committed to the security of our nation and the preservation of freedom and democracy around the world. Congress must provide the Department of Defense with the certainty and stability that comes with a long-term defense-spending plan.

Mr. President, it is my understanding we are scheduled for a vote at 11 o'clock; is that correct?

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

I inquire of the Chair, is there a time certain for a vote?

I will postpone my remarks until after the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we have gone through a lot of activity and a lot of anguish on the floor concerning the immigration bills. There was a comprehensive immigration bill that did not work. It was something some people thought would be a good idea and, frankly, I opposed it.

But there is something that is happening right now that is a very good idea. There are 15 of us in the Senate who have taken different elements of concern having to do with illegal immigration, areas of specialty, if you will. It happens that 15 of us had a news conference yesterday, wherein we talked about approaching this differently--each one having his or her own legislation, and then you can support other legislation as you see fit.

It happens that there will be 15 bills that will be introduced. I will have one of those, and I will be supporting 14 of the other 15, or 13 of the other 14. So I think the way we are approaching this is good.

My area of specialty, that comes as no surprise, is in making English the national language. We have been talking about this for a long time. The approach we are talking about is a very simple approach. It is something that is popular.

I have had this on the floor of the Senate twice. In 2006, it was amendment No. 4064. It passed the Senate by a vote of 62 to 35. Again, in 2007, the support was even greater. That was amendment No. 1151. It passed--that was last year--by a vote of 64 to 33. So it is something that clearly is popular.

Let me explain the problem we have. One of the last things that was done in the Clinton administration was Executive Order 13166. This was an effort to make anyone who is receiving any kind of Government services to have the documentation in any language of his or her choice. It could be Swahili, it could be French, it could be any other language.

Now, the effort to make English the national language is not purely symbolic, as some of my colleagues might believe; rather, it will have a tangible impact.

After Executive Order No. 13166, there has been a high burden on Government agencies to provide translations for documents for services in virtually every language.

The cost is tremendous. It is quite a range. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimated the cost of providing these services to be between $1 and $2 billion each year.

The cost is not the only drawback of the entitlements of Executive Order No. 13166. It ultimately enables immigrants to avoid learning English which, regretfully, hurts their chances of effective assimilation into American culture. Historically, one of America's greatest attributes is the unity provided by having a language that is commonly used throughout the country. It is important for new legal immigrants to learn this language so they might communicate and achieve success.

As President Bush said in one of his messages, learning English ``allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery [store] . . . from cleaning offices to running offices . . . from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own.''

I can't think of any issue we have had before the Senate during the time I have been here that is more popular than this. A 2006 Zogby poll found that 84 percent of Americans, including 71 percent of Hispanics, believe English should be the national language of government operations. According to a 2002 Kaiser Foundation survey, 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to success. We have polling data going all the way back to 1996. In each case, 84 to 90 percent of the American people want this to take place.

I ask unanimous consent that these polls be printed in the Record.

People need to understand the significance. When I brought this up before, there were three objections. They were really absurd. It is almost laughable. One was, we will have to change all the State flags because some of them have other languages.

This has nothing to do with that. This merely says it is not an entitlement. It has nothing to do with State flags.

Another Member said: Inhofe, you will not be able to speak Spanish on the Senate floor. I have given several speeches in Spanish on the Senate floor. I will not go into why that is good. It has been very helpful. This has nothing to do with that.

Another said: You will have the blood of Hispanics on your hands.

I said: How is that going to happen?

They said: There are some strong currents down there in the Potomac, and we would not have ``no swimming'' signs in Spanish, so they wouldn't be able to read those. So they will go in there and drown.

If we look back historically, we see that many Presidents had things to say about this matter, dating all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt, and as recently as a statement by Hillary Clinton in her campaign in Iowa in 2007, less than a year ago, where she said: ``You're going to have to learn English.''

This one goes back to 1916:

Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope [they] will

learn English, but that [they have] to learn English.

Theodore Roosevelt was clear on this.

Bill Clinton said in 1999 in his State of the Union message:

We have a responsibility to make [our new immigrants]

welcome here, and they have the responsibility to enter the

mainstream of American life. That means learning English and

learning about our democratic system of government.

So everyone is in agreement. I don't know of anyone, nor any past President, who doesn't believe we are doing a great disservice by not helping our immigrants learn the English language.

We will continue to promote this bill until it passes into law. It should be one of the easiest of the 15 bills that are going to approach the problem of illegal immigrants. It is my intention to continue.

One of the interesting things about this is, there are 52 countries throughout the world who have English as their national language, including Ghana in West Africa. All of these countries have it except us.

The bill is very simple. I can tell in one sentence what it does:

Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a

right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the

United States or any of its officials or representatives act,

communicate, perform or provide services, or provide

materials in any language other than English.

This is the law of some 52 countries around the world, almost everywhere except in the United States. It would save ultimately somewhere between $1 and $2 billion. And there are the other logical reasons for doing this. We will be pursuing this as 1 of the 15 efforts to have not a comprehensive bill, but to address the problem of illegal immigration. I look around and I see others who have good programs too.

The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has one that would utilize electronic evidence for employers so employers don't find themselves breaking the law as would have been the case on the previous bill. There are others wanting to finish the bridge. We will have 15 bills that we will be introducing or we have already introduced. If we can get all 15, that would pretty much resolve the problem. But it does afford the opportunity for any Member of this body to object to any area of interest in terms of these 15 bills.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, about an hour ago, I was presenting a bill that we had introduced as part of 15 bills to resolve the illegal immigration problem. It is one that I have done many times before, which is making English the official language, or national language, for the United States. I think it is one that has enjoyed a great deal of popularity. It has passed this body before by almost a 2-to-1 margin, in 2006 and in 2007.

At the conclusion of my presentation on this legislation, I neglected to ask that a copy of the bill, S. 2715, be printed in the Record following my remarks. I will soon ask that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am joined by several colleagues, including Senators Cochran, Wicker, Domenici, Shelby, and others, in introducing the Preserving Access to Hospice Act, a bill to ensure that America's terminally ill seniors have access to hospice care by providing immediate relief for hospices that are impacted by the Medicare hospice cap, through the establishment of a moratorium on the calculation and collection of the hospice cap for fiscal 2006, 2007, and 2008, and the authorization of a MedPAC study on the cap issue.

My fellow Oklahoman in the House of Representatives, John Sullivan, today introduced the same companion bill on the House side.

Because of a flawed law, the Federal Government is requiring hospices to repay the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, for serving eligible patients in prior years. Many small family and community-owned hospices will be forced to close, patients will lose access to hospice care, and local jobs will be lost. In Oklahoma especially, hospice care companies of all sizes service a large number of Oklahomans.

In 1982, Congress initiated hospice as a Medicare benefit for terminally ill patients. In the 1980s and 1990s, Congress worked to broaden hospice coverage to ensure each eligible beneficiary has access to unlimited days of hospice care, regardless of their diagnosis.

Medicare pays hospice a flat fee per patient per day regardless of the actual cost. The hospice is then responsible for all costs related to the care of its patient until their death, regardless of how long they remain under their care. However, under the hospice Medicare benefit, Medicare caps the number of days they will pay per patient. Hospices cannot manage this cap without rationing access of care to these terminally ill patients who elect the hospice benefit for however long they remain eligible.

I have to say at this time that some of the best spent money in this type of care is the hospices.

At the end of the care, CMS has been recalculating how much they have paid the hospice per patient and what the eligible cap days were for each patient. This is something done after the patient has already received care. If they paid the hospice more than was allowed under the cap, the hospice is required to repay Medicare. Therefore, hospices are being contacted by CMS and asked to repay millions of dollars used to care for these dying patients. In 1999, very few hospices were hitting the cap because Medicare had strict restrictions on who was eligible for the benefits. As the eligibility and longevity has increased, hospices started to go over the cap.

In 2005, 41 percent of the hospices providing care in my State of Oklahoma received letters from CMS demanding repayment. Obviously, the recalculation is unfair and will result in patients being denied hospice care, and many Oklahoma hospices are going bankrupt. As Congress and CMS examine this issue, temporary relief is needed so that the patients can continue to have access to hospice care and hospice providers do not face bankruptcy. My legislation provides immediate relief for impacted hospices by establishing a moratorium on the calculation and collection of the hospice cap for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and authorizing a MedPAC study to determine the best way to address this hospice cap issue.

I have been working since early 2007 to help small community hospices in Oklahoma as they face repayment letters from CMS for millions of dollars. Without a moratorium, these Oklahoma hospices, as well as hospices in numerous other States, will be unable to meet demands for repayment. As a result, hospices will be forced to close and discharge significant numbers of terminally ill patients, possibly into more expensive care.

So I ask you to join me in supporting this legislation that will protect our terminally ill seniors' access to hospice care.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, in response to the widely publicized product recalls of last year, the Congress appropriated $80 million for fiscal year 2008 to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was an increase of 28 percent. The CPSC was instructed to use the additional money to increase staff, workspace, and information technology resources. In December, the House of Representatives passed the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, H.R. 4040, by an overwhelming vote of 407 to 0. It seems like that would have been a reasonable place to start. In fact, during this debate, a number of us voted in favor of Senator DeMint's amendment to completely substitute the bill we are now considering with the House-passed bill. H.R. 4040 incrementally increases CPSC's budget to $100 million for fiscal year 2011, requires third-party and pre-market testing of many children's product for lead and other hazards, and creates new lead standards for products.

However, instead of focusing on product safety, we are now focusing on legislation seeming to simply benefit lawyers. Lawyers who, under this legislation, would have higher civil penalties and new punitive damages to pursue in whistleblower claims.

The bill also allows State attorneys general to file lawsuits and enforce rules against manufacturers, conceivably creating 50 different standards of product safety laws; in other words, lawsuits as far as the eye can see. In fact, this week, a Wall Street Journal editorial referred to the Senate bill as ``Lawyers 'R' Us.''

We have tried to amend this bill and improve the problematic aspects of it, and have achieved very few positive changes. I will miss the vote on final passage. However, since I would be opposing it anyway, it would make no difference in the outcome.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing now will award a Congressional Commemorative Medal to Code Talkers of the Choctaw, Comanche, and other tribes in recognition of their service during World Wars I and II. For five years I have worked to honor these heroes since first introducing the ``Code Talkers Recognition Act'' in March of 2003. Last year's measure gained passage in the Senate with 79 cosponsors and I look forward to the bill's success this session of Congress as well. Native American Code Talkers deserve nothing less.

Code Talkers from the Choctaw, Comanche and other tribes are true American heroes whose accomplishments have too long been forgotten. This legislation finally recognizes and honors a group of people who made a real difference in the fight for freedom during World Wars I and II. Their service on the front lines helped propel the allied forces to victory and saved countless lives in the process.

I look forward to working in coordination with Congressman Dan Boren in the House of Representatives and all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure passage of this legislation and finally pass long- overdue recognition of Native American Code Talkers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing now will award a Congressional Commemorative Medal to Code Talkers of the Choctaw, Comanche, and other tribes in recognition of their service during World Wars I and II. For five years I have worked to honor these heroes since first introducing the ``Code Talkers Recognition Act'' in March of 2003. Last year's measure gained passage in the Senate with 79 cosponsors and I look forward to the bill's success this session of Congress as well. Native American Code Talkers deserve nothing less.

Code Talkers from the Choctaw, Comanche and other tribes are true American heroes whose accomplishments have too long been forgotten. This legislation finally recognizes and honors a group of people who made a real difference in the fight for freedom during World Wars I and II. Their service on the front lines helped propel the allied forces to victory and saved countless lives in the process.

I look forward to working in coordination with Congressman Dan Boren in the House of Representatives and all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure passage of this legislation and finally pass long- overdue recognition of Native American Code Talkers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Yes, I would.

Would the Senator yield? I would like to know what the regular order is here.

I understand I have 15 minutes. I might wish to take a little bit longer than that. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for as long as 30 minutes.

You go ahead. I want to hear everything you have to say. Let me suggest that after the Senator from New Mexico, at the conclusion of his remarks, I be recognized for up to 30 minutes.

Madam President, I would like to take a little longer view of what is going on right now in the war for the liberation of Iraq, the good things that are happening, the surge, and kind of go back to give a better perspective as to how we got here in the first place.

There was this euphoria that was going around back in the early 1990s: The Cold War is over, we don't need a military any longer. They talked about such things as the peace dividend at that time, and this is what precipitated 9/11. The Clinton administration came in, and this is the amount of the actual DOD budget at that time. This was the baseline. This is a very simple chart that tells us a lot. If we were to merely have maintained the level of defense spending as it took place in the last year of the Bush 1 administration and then had nothing except the inflation rate, which wasn't all that great, it would be this black line taking us up to fiscal year 2001. This was what would have happened if we didn't do anything else. But down here the red line indicates where President Clinton made his budget request. That was his annual DOD request. If you forget about the middle line, the difference between his request and if we just maintained the same position that we were in in fiscal year 1993, it would have been $412 billion less; in other words, in that short timeframe, we would have cut defense real spending in constant dollars by $412 billion.

The Congress didn't let that happen. This middle line, the green line, is what actually was budgeted. So what we did was to say to the White House: You are not taking good enough care of our military needs. And so we raised it by about $99 billion over that period. That means the real shortfall was $313 billion in that timeframe.

I show this chart because there was an attitude in this country at that time that there weren't any real serious problems. People kept saying we were the world's greatest superpower, and we appropriated more money than anyone else. I wanted it to continue that way, but there were some things that were going on that I would like to remind us of. That was called an acquisition holiday or a peace dividend. I think it was more of a holiday in leadership at that time. International terrorism took to the forefront as bin Laden began his war against freedom. Afghanistan was used as a training ground for terrorists, and the Taliban regime allowed al-Qaida unfettered mobility. We were on holiday. We were not fighting back. They took advantage of this in some major attacks.

Somehow I think the memory of the American people isn't very long because they forgot about these attacks that were taking place. Remember the first attack on the World Trade Center was in 1993, February 26. It was a car bomb that was planted in an underground parking garage below the World Trade Center, and that was way back in 1993. In 1996, the Khobar Towers, we remember that well. They were bombed by Hezbollah with the intelligence pointing toward al-Qaida, still al-Qaida. At the same time this was going on, in northern Africa their presence was visible at that time. Further on down in southern Africa we had the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. That was in 1998. That was in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. It went unanswered at that time. So we had all of this going up through 1998.

Then there is the year 2000, when suicide bombers used a boat to attack the USS Cole while it was moored in Yemen.

Yemen is right at the horn of Africa on the other side. And now we know that as the squeeze has taken place, that has become a very prominent place for al-Qaida and for the terrorists. So you had Djibouti, we were starting to put troops in there, but we had that suicide bombing. That was a major thing. It let us know, it reminded us that we could have a ship, the USS Cole at that time, and have nothing but just a little outrigger going out there and blowing it up and causing the deaths and the damage that took place.

The response--this was back in the first of the Clinton years--was pretty benign. It was restrained and at best inconsistent. Operation Infinite Reach included cruise missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan. There was no real change. The administration was distracted at that time. This inadequate response has been cited as a factor emboldening al-Qaida to undertake further plans. Yet we continued on our holiday at that time. In Operation Restore Hope, we became embroiled in Somalia, and we remember what happened in the streets of Mogadishu when finally the people woke up when they saw the naked bodies dragged through the streets. President Clinton directed U.S. forces to stop all actions except those required in self-defense, and we withdrew from the country shortly thereafter.

It is kind of hard for America to get in the habit of withdrawing. We stake out our position, and we have historically stood strong and carried it out. In

1999, as a NATO member, the United States became involved in a bombing campaign against Yugoslavia and a subsequent U.N. peacekeeping force. The holiday that we were on at that time ignored the rising threats against our national security, mortgaged our military, leaving a bold challenge for the next administration.

The first Rumsfeld confirmation was rather enlightening because what we did at that time was to try to determine what our needs were going to be for the future. We had to rethink where we were before. And at that time we were trying to reevaluate where we were. We were recalling some of the bad things that had happened. We remember so well the 1991 Persian Gulf war. There was a group that went over, a bipartisan group. I remember Tony Coelho at the time. He had been the Democratic lead in the House. I was in the House at the time. We had the first freedom fight, and we sent a group over to Kuwait. It was the day that the war was officially over. The problem was the Iraqis didn't know that the war was over at that time, and so we had the first freedom fight. We went over there.

Al Haig, I ran into him the other day. We kind of relived that experience we had over there. We had with us a very special guest. He was the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States. He had his daughter. They were a family of nobility. They had a palace on the Persian Gulf. But, of course, they hadn't been there because that was a war zone, that was Kuwait. So we went over there, this group of nine of us, Democrats and Republicans, and I remember when the wind shifted, the oil fields were still burning. It was a mess over there. But they wanted to go back, the Ambassador wanted to go back and see what their house looked like, if it had been damaged in the war.

When we got there, we found that his house had been used for one of Saddam Hussein's headquarters. His daughter, she was either 7, 8, or 9 years old. I remember so well because she wanted to go up and see her bedroom and the dolls and all of that. We went up into this mansion on the Persian Gulf, a beautiful place, only to find out that her bedroom had been used as a torture chamber. There were body parts stuck to the walls. I saw a little boy who had his ear cut off, maybe 6 or 7 years old, because they found him carrying a tiny American flag. That was back at the time when unconscionable murders were taking place where Saddam Hussein, after that was over, started killing anyone who was suspect and torturing them to death. There are stories documented that people would beg to be dropped, lowered into vats of acid head first so they would die quicker.

Being put through grinding machines, like you are shredding documents; the open graves; the documentation of weddings that were for a while taking place--many of them outdoors; that is the way they did it over in that area--and Saddam's sons, at that time they were alive and the regime was in there, they would go through and bust up weddings and rape all the girls and take them and bury them alive. I actually looked down into those open graves, and people were so quick to forget what a monster he was.

I have often said, even if that had not happened, even if we did not have the problems with the terrorist activity in Iraq and the fact that they were training people in Iraq to be involved in terrorist activity--al-Qaida was very prominent--that even if that had not been the case, how could we as a country allow the hundreds of thousands of people to be tortured to death in such a cruel way? I do not think we could. Certainly, we could not if people had a chance to see it.

So the time went by, and they started talking about, of course, going into this liberation movement in Iraq.

Now, there has been a lot of discussion over the years about weapons of mass destruction. Those of us who were over there--I would say to you, Madam President, that while I have not been this many times to Iraq, I have actually been in the area 27 different trips--27 different times. Sometimes it was at CENTCOM, sometimes the Horn of Africa and other areas. But, see, the terrorist activity and the war was not just in Iraq. It was in the whole surrounding area. So in all those times I was there, I had a chance to, on a firsthand basis, see what was involved.

We know we had to go in there. We know we had to go in there and finish what had been started in Iraq.

Now, there are three things that were started. No. 1, we had to liberate Iraq from a tyrannical leader--we have already talked about him--No. 2, eliminate a safe haven for terrorists and their training camps; and then, No. 3, to help the Iraqi people create a free and democratic country strategically located right in the Middle East where we have the greatest needs.

Well, No. 1, the liberation of Iraq: After the first Persian Gulf war, I told you, we had what we called the first freedom flight into Kuwait. But that liberation was necessary to put an end to Saddam Hussein's regime of torture.

Now, when they talked about weapons of mass destruction, yes, weapons of mass destruction were not found. We know they were there. They were used on the Kurds in the north. Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction to painfully murder thousands of his own people using gas that burned them alive. That was happening. But, nonetheless, for those of us who were aware, that was not the real reason.

If you look at the second reason, that Iraq was a major terrorist training area--a lot of us are familiar with Samarra and Ramadi, but some have forgotten or may have never even known about some of the other areas.

Sargat was an international terrorist training camp in northeastern Iraq near the Iranian border, run by Ansar al-Islam, a known terrorist organization. Based on information from the U.S. Army Special Forces, operators who led the attack on Sargat said: It is indeed more than plausible that al-Qaida members trained in that particular training camp.

Now, one of the interesting places where this was taking place was a place called Salman Pak. In Salman Pak they had--and I think it is still there to this day--on the ground an old fuselage of a 707, and that was used to train people on how to hijack airplanes. I have often wondered if that could have been where the perpetrators of 9/11 got their training. I have no way of knowing. We never will know. But we do know this: That location, along with the problems in Sargat, had major training areas for the terrorists. So we were able to shut those down. I would say this: That alone would be enough motivation for us to go and liberate the people of Iraq.

But the third one is to help the Iraqi people create a free and democratic country. Iraq is trying to do what we tried to do 230 years ago. They are risking their lives, as we risked our lives some 230 years ago. They are seeking a constitution, a parliament, freedom, and democracy. These are things they are trying to accomplish.

I think of that first election that took place out in Fallujah, when the Iraqi security forces were going to vote. I was there. I was in Fallujah actually for all three elections, I believe. But I remember the Iraqi security forces in that first election. Everybody remembers the purple fingers so they could identify who was voting in those elections. And these guys--the security forces--went out and voted the day before the elections. They did not wait for the elections. They were doing it the day before so they would be there on election day to provide the security.

People were risking their lives to go out and vote. We know the cases of people being attacked by the terrorists to keep them from voting. They were easy to identify because of the purple fingers. But these guys were gladly going in there at that time, going to vote, and then returning the next day to protect our people who were there.

Our men and women serving in Iraq are providing the Iraqis the same inspiration our forefathers provided us. Iraq is becoming an example to the world of how to reject terror and confront those who practice it. The world sees now the Iraqi citizens are realizing their potential, signing up as Concerned Citizens, sons of Iraq--72,000.

It is a pretty amazing thing when you look and see that instead of the mass graves and all these things, you are seeing a mass participation in Iraq. They are returning to normalcy now. A lot of people are asking: Is the surge really working? I do not believe anyone is out there who can conscientiously deny that the surge has worked.

It was about a year ago that General Petraeus went in. What happened? Three things happened. One was that

Petraeus--by far, the greatest guy for the job out there; and I do not think anyone except moveon.org disagrees with that now--that Petraeus took over. Secondly, the surge, in certain strategic areas, increased in numbers. But the third thing that happened was there have been so many resolutions like the one that is before us right now that I refer to as ``resolutions of surrender'' that got the attention of a lot of the religious leaders.

I often draw a distinction from my own personal experience. I have met with the political leaders, of course, like all the other Members who have gone over there. I have done it more because I have been there more times. But the religious leaders are the ones who have the greatest impact on what is going on in Iraq. Up until--and this is a statement no one has refuted--up until about a year ago, our defense intelligence people would attend and monitor the Friday night mosque meetings that took place throughout Iraq. These are with the clerics and the imams, the religious leaders. Prior to that time, 85 percent of the messages that were preached, I guess you would say, in the mosques were anti-American. To my knowledge, there has not been an anti- American message given from a mosque in Iraq since last April because they realize if we leave, then the terrorists will move in.

So that is why we are getting--it has been talked about by many people on the Senate floor--the attitudinal change. The neighborhood watch programs--in my hometown of Tulsa, OK, we have a neighborhood watch program. We have them in Washington. They have them over there, with private citizens who have the courage to go out without any arms and confront terrorists; where they can, through their own intelligence and sheer numbers, determine where there are RPGs and IEDs that are not detonated, and then they identify them by little orange paint cans, where they draw a circle around there, and then we can go in there and detonate these and save many lives.

Well, we are today experiencing all that help. I can remember when our troops who were working out of Baghdad would come back to the Green Zone every night. They do not do that anymore. They go out and they actually bed down and live with the Iraqi security forces and their families, develop intimate relationships with them. It is a totally different thing there altogether.

I can remember there was not a way in the world you could walk through the markets in Baghdad. The last time I was there, I walked through, and I intentionally did not take anybody with me except an interpreter because I did not want to give that image that you have to have armed guards and all that, and I remember stopping and talking to people. I like to single out people who are holding babies. They have this love for us that they did not have before.

So we now see these changes that are taking place. We see that basic economics is taking root and Iraqis are spending money on Iraqi projects. Iraqis are taking back control of their country. We are helping the Iraqi people create a free and democratic country where representation and the rule of law are replacing coercion and terror.

The Iraqi Parliament has passed legislation that reforms debaathification. They have enacted pension reform that allows former Baathists to collect their pension. They have enacted laws defining provincial and central government roles and responsibilities to delineate what each person is supposed to do--the distinction between the police and the security forces, what their functions are, what their missions are.

They passed a 2008 budget. They did it sooner than we did it in this country. They enacted an amnesty law that could lead to the release of thousands of detainees, removing a stumbling block standing in the way of reconciliation.

More than any previous legislation, these new initiatives have the potential to spur reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites and set the country on the road to a more representative government, starting with new provincial elections.

Now, in the future, where do we go from here? Our Nation has paid, and continues to pay, a heavy price. People in this Chamber have talked about the heavy price. They are right. It is not cheap. It is very expensive. We have paid a heavy price in dollars and lives, with our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters. We are doing a difficult thing. But just as Americans have always tried to do the right thing, we are doing the right thing in Iraq.

Iraq is at a decisive turning point in their journey toward democracy. The fight in Iraq is not about today or tomorrow but about many tomorrows to come and about the future. It is about our grandchildren's grandchildren and the world they will live in.

It is not just Iraq. Right now, a lot of concern is taking place as to Iran and Ahmadinejad and some of the political leaders and the things they are promoting. One of the greatest obstacles they have in Iran is they are right next door to Iraq, and there are so many people who share family members, and they are looking over wistfully and seeing that people are getting married without the disruptions, that girls are actually getting an education. This is not the Iraq they knew before. So these things are happening.

Secretary Gates said:

If we were to withdraw, leaving Iraq in chaos, al Qaeda

almost certainly would use Anbar province . . . as another

base from which to plan operations not only inside Iraq, but

first of all in the neighborhood and then potentially against

the United States.

Al-Qaida is not the only threat to America and our ideals. I mentioned a minute ago Ahmadinejad. He said, on August 28, 2007--just a short while ago--

Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region.

Now, what he was talking about is the type of resolution we are considering right now. He is saying a cut-and-run resolution would create a huge power vacuum. What else did he say? He said that expecting this defeatism, expecting that we would vote for this--which we are not. We are not going to vote for this resolution. We know that. We have had the same resolution voted down 71 to 24 the last time we had a vote on it. But, nonetheless, he said: ``Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap. . . .''

So you have Iran filling the gap that would be there if we were to get up and leave in the victorious moments we are having now.

Iran's nuclear work continues, including recent doubling of their enrichment of uranium, which could easily be used as part of a nuclear weapons program, a decision in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In the last 2 years Iran has continued to develop ballistic missile technology, launching missiles over 2,000 kilometers.

Coalition forces have intercepted Iranian arms shipments in Iraq, including materials that are used to make explosively formed penetrators, the EFPs, the most deadly of the IEDs, which are being used against American troops. This is what Iran is doing today.

Coalition forces have also detained Iranian agents in Iraq. A lack of a secure and stable Iraq means instability in the Middle East and a clear avenue for terror and oppression to spread. Instability in the Middle East will continue to spread, as it already has, into Africa, Asia, and Europe, and ultimately find its way to our shores.

We know what is happening right now in Africa. I know probably more than some of the others do, because I have seen firsthand. I have sat down and talked with such Presidents as President Museveni in Uganda. I have talked to Prime Minister Meles in Somalia--in Ethiopia, and many of the others, including John Kufuor in Ghana, all about the threat they face of terrorism all throughout Africa. In our infinite wisdom here, it was our decision a few years ago to go in and help the Africans build five African brigades, so that as this moves into their area, they are able to fight off terrorism without using our troops. We have such programs as the 1206, 1207, and 1208, where we are arming and equipping, training and equipping programs for these countries. These are things we are helping them do so we can avoid having to be on the front lines of the battle against the terrorists. They can do that too.

Patrick Henry said:

We shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God

who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will

raise up friends to fight our battles with us.

That is what is happening over there at this time.

So the coalition forces have been doing a great job, and right now we are observing the successes of the surge. They watch with great interest as defeatist legislation is repeatedly brought up on the floor, hoping that Congress will do what they cannot: give them victory in Iraq and the Middle East. So we must not try to micromanage our military. One of the two bills that is on the floor right now would actually micromanage it. It is as if we in our infinite wisdom in the Senate are smarter than General Petraeus, General Odierno, and all of the professionals. Yes, I was in the U.S. Army many years ago, so I have some hands-on experience in this type of thing, certainly not that of the professionals. The worst thing we can do is try to micromanage our military and place restrictions on them, telling them how many troops they should withdraw and what our troop strength should be over there, and at the same time anything we do over here, the enemy knows we are doing it also. Our professional warriors want to and can succeed with our support.

That is what this is all about. I have no doubt in my mind we will defeat these things. In a way, I am glad Senator Feingold brought these bills to the floor, because this gives us a forum to talk to the American people about things they may not be getting in the media. It is interesting that it used to be when I went over to Iraq, the first thing the kids over there would ask me is why doesn't the media like me. They don't talk that way anymore. Even people who were anti this administration, people such as Katie Couric, went over and observed what is going on. Once you go and observe, you can see we are winning, this is working, and this liberation is taking place.

I know my 30 minutes has expired, but we are here to continue what we have started. The worst thing we could do right now is to take success out of the hands of the military who are successfully winning the liberation of Iraq and start to micromanage this politically from the Senate floor. This isn't going to happen. We are winning over there now. It is so refreshing, after all these years. Yes, it has been a long time. People keep reminding us this is longer than World War II. I know that, because each year I have had an opportunity to spend time over there, quality time, and see the changes that are taking place via the plan of this genius named David Petraeus, it is working. So we don't want to get in their way, and we won't get in their way, and we will go ahead and defeat these bills and let the military run the liberation as they see fit, and we are going to join them in our victory.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Lieberman's remarks I be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, let me, first of all, commend our colleague who just spoke. Senator Lieberman is very knowledgeable. It has been such an honor for me, in the years I have been in the Senate, to be serving on both the Armed Services Committee with him as well as the Environment and Public Works Committee.

I very much am opposed to Senator Feingold's bills. But I wonder, in this short session, in the short time we have left--we have such things to debate: the budget, housing, energy, consumer product safety, education, farm programs--and I have to ask: Why are we wasting valuable time on these bills? And why at this time do we need another report?

The National Security Strategy was written in 2006, and another will be required 150 days after the new administration comes in. The National Military Strategy review has been completed, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is conducting his own additional review. The Quadrennial Defense Review will be out later this year. And the National Defense Strategy is also mandated by law. We currently have the strategy in place to win the global war on terror.

The study prescribed by S. 2634 ties the hands of our military by telling them to outline a strategy that does not let them utilize the full extent of their resources.

Furthermore, the substance of Senator Feingold's bills has been debated and defeated. On December 18, 2007, we voted against an amendment of the same nature as S. 2633 from the very same Senator, Senator Feingold. It was a troop withdrawal amendment, it was No. 3875, and it was defeated 71 to 24. We have already done this. Senator McCain said it best when he said that a majority had, by December 18, engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to achieve the misguided outcome of precipitous withdrawal. This makes Nos. 41 and 42. All of these 40-odd, time-wasting attempts have been defeated. Why? Because we are doing the right thing in Iraq.

We did away with the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, where mass graves, torture, and rape were normal and everyday occurrences. We did away with terrorist training camps in Samarra, Ramadi, Sargat, Salmon Pak--and incidentally, Salmon Pak, in that training camp, they had a fuselage of an old 707 there, teaching people how to hijack airplanes. I guess we will never know whether the perpetrators of 9/11 were trained there. But nonetheless, there were four training camps there. They are gone now. They are closed.

We helped the Iraqi people create a free and Democratic country, where representation and the rule of law are replacing coercion and terror. The Iraqi Parliament has passed legislation that has reformed the de-Ba'athification, enacted pension reform that allowed former Ba'athists to collect their pensions. They enacted a law defining the provincial and central government roles and responsibilities. They passed the 2008 budget--faster than we are doing it, actually--and enacted an amnesty law that could lead to the release of thousands of detainees, removing a stumbling block standing in the way of reconciliation.

We have done the right thing, and we are winning.

It is interesting. A lot of the people who were the defeatists come back now--Katie Couric is an example--who says we are actually winning. Less than half the al-Qaida leaders who were in Baghdad when the surge began are still in the city. They have either fled or were killed and captured.

In addition to the list Senator Lieberman talked about and in terms of the successes, there has been a 75-percent reduction in religious and ethnic killings in the capital, they have doubled the seizure of insurgents' weapons caches, there has been a rise in the number of al- Qaida killed and captured, they have knocked out six media cells, making it harder for al-Qaida to spread their propaganda, and Anbar incidents of attacks are down from 40 a day to less than 10 a day. There has been economic growth, markets are open, and the streets are crowded.

We have been over there and we have seen it. You didn't used to be able to do that. The Iraqi Army is performing well.

The Iraqi citizens formed a grassroots movement called Concerned Citizens Leagues. This is interesting because this is allowing citizens, as we have in Washington, DC, and in Tulsa, OK--we have groups that go out there to protect ourselves, and that is what these people are doing. They are unarmed. They are going out now with paint cans and drawing circles around undetonated IEDs and unexploded ordnance.

COL Tom James, one of the commanders of the 3rd I.D. in Iraq, said last Friday, February 22:

The current security situation is stable and I am

optimistic about the future. Sunni extremists are severely

disrupted. They no longer find sanctuary and support from the

population.

We are winning because we are supporting our war fighters with a fundamental advantage, allowing them to command and control their forces--not doing it from here. Senator Feingold's amendment serves to tie the hands of our commanders on the ground.

S. 2633 legislates defeat. There is no other way to put it. The amendment legislates defeat. Secretary Gates said: If we were to withdraw, leaving Iraq in chaos, al-Qaida most certainly would use Anbar Province . . . as another base from which to plan operations not only inside Iraq, but first of all in the neighborhood and then potentially against the United States.

I must remind Senator Feingold and the cosponsors of this amendment that al-Qaida is not the only threat to America and to our ideals. Ahmadinejad said on August 28--this is very interesting. He said:

Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region.

A power vacuum.

He said this expecting our defeatism--he is talking about these resolutions--he said:

Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.

Now here is Iran, a country which recently declared a doubling of its uranium enrichment program and has been testing ballistic missiles, talking about filling this gap, the void that would be created.

A lack of a secure and stable Iraq means instability in the Middle East and a clear avenue for terror and oppression to spread, and already has spread, into Africa.

I have had occasion to be in what we refer to as the CENTCOM and now AFRICOM and EUCOM some 27 times since 9/11. A lot of that time is down in areas such as Djibouti and in the heart of Africa, where we have our forces down there, because with this squeeze taking place in the Middle East, there is a lot of the terrorist traffic going into Africa. As for S. 2634, as the one before it, it is a thinly veiled attempt to end the war in Iraq by legislating defeat.

The bill proposes to micromanage military strategy by forcing the administration to narrowly define the future movement and employment of military personnel. It attempts to define the type of missions the military can conduct and places constraints on the length of time the military can deploy. It falsely presumes our professional warriors would be better served by limiting their deployments rather than supporting their victory over the enemy.

By the way, all these people who now talk to me about the long deployments--and I agree the deployments are too long--I wonder where they were in the 1990s when we cut down the size of our military, when we brought the number of divisions down from 18 to 10. I can remember being on the floor saying this day was going to come and that some day we were going to say: Why did we cut back so far?

Again, COL Tom James, speaking about our recent successes, said:

It all goes back to this window of security being opened,

and being able to exploit that window of opportunity through

governance and economics and building the capacity of the

Iraqi security forces. This has all been enabled because of

the surge.

Proposing specific deployment and dwell times would limit the flexibility

of our commanders to conduct operations in the field and infringe on the President's authority as Commander in Chief.

So this is the same flexibility that allowed the Commander in Chief to surge forces and turn the tide in Iraq. I am one of those who personally observed the changes that took place in Iraq with the surge. It was about a year ago right now. I recall a report where our intelligence was actually attending all the weekly Friday mosque meetings, and at that time, my recollection is 85 percent of those messages given by the imams and the clerics were anti-American messages. That stopped in April, and they realized things are working there. There is so much talk about the political leaders, I kind of look at the religious leaders as part of the reason for the successes we have had.

So I think we have already voted on these. They have been voted down, and we don't need to waste any more time on it. I think common sense-- when we sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, as we did this morning, and we looked at the brilliant generals who were testifying before us, such as General Casey, these people spend a lifetime knowing what is going on and how to negotiate wars. We are winning. Things are good right now. I have often thought--I was honored in 1991 to be on the first freedom flight back to Kuwait. At that time, the Iraqis didn't know the war was over. They were still burning the fields. I remember going into one of the houses that actually was the Ambassador to the United States from Kuwait, a family of nobility, going into their home. They wanted to see what it looked like. Saddam Hussein had used it for one of his headquarters, and the little daughter going up to her bedroom to see what it looked like, they had used her bedroom for a torture chamber. The unimaginable things that were going on over there: Looking into the mass graves. I would think that those individuals on the other side, if nothing more--if that were all there were to it--would say we have to finish. It is our humanitarian responsibility.

We are experiencing a victory, the surge is working, and I hope we will be able to dispose of, in a very quick way, these two bills authored by Senator Feingold.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Technical Corrections to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard. This bill is a measured response to the overly aggressive biofuels increase mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed in December. The Energy bill's mandates allow no room for error in a fuels industry already constrained by tight supplies, full capacity, environmental regulation, and volatile market conditions. This technical corrections bill is not an effort to substantively overhaul the RFS program but rather is an attempt to smooth its unintended consequences. Recognizing the delicate political balance surrounding RFS, these simple fixes are intended to provide flexibility for the fuels industry in meeting these mandates. As ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee I did not support the 2007 Energy bill. The enactment of these technical corrections would not change my overall opposition to the current flaws enacted to the RFS program, but my bill does make this new RFS less onerous.

The first correction to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard allows a carryover of ethanol credits. This improvement does nothing to change the currently mandated numbers. Rather, it provides flexibility to an industry facing many uncertainties. In 2007, the industry used approximately 2 billion gallons of ethanol over and above the necessary levels prescribed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPACT. However, EPACT language and EPA rulemaking do not allow for 2-year consecutive ``carryover'' of credits. This means that although the industry has exceeded the 2007 requirements, they would be unable to apply these credits after 12 months. My bill would accommodate the uncertain levels of production from year to year. Considering the myriad variables involved in the ethanol production process including crop yields, land use, and feed stock prices, it only makes sense to allow more flexibility.

Another fix extends the small refinery exemption by 2 years. This language also does nothing to change mandated levels. A small refinery produces less than 75,000 barrels average daily aggregate and EPACT exempts these facilities from the renewable fuels numbers until 2011. These refineries are dealing with drastically smaller economies of scale in production. In order to protect these refineries from potential economic hardship and subsequent job loss, this exemption should be extended from the year 2011 to 2013.

I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and quickly pass the bill I am introducing today.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Technical Corrections to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard. This bill is a measured response to the overly aggressive biofuels increase mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed in December. The Energy bill's mandates allow no room for error in a fuels industry already constrained by tight supplies, full capacity, environmental regulation, and volatile market conditions. This technical corrections bill is not an effort to substantively overhaul the RFS program but rather is an attempt to smooth its unintended consequences. Recognizing the delicate political balance surrounding RFS, these simple fixes are intended to provide flexibility for the fuels industry in meeting these mandates. As ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee I did not support the 2007 Energy bill. The enactment of these technical corrections would not change my overall opposition to the current flaws enacted to the RFS program, but my bill does make this new RFS less onerous.

The first correction to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard allows a carryover of ethanol credits. This improvement does nothing to change the currently mandated numbers. Rather, it provides flexibility to an industry facing many uncertainties. In 2007, the industry used approximately 2 billion gallons of ethanol over and above the necessary levels prescribed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPACT. However, EPACT language and EPA rulemaking do not allow for 2-year consecutive ``carryover'' of credits. This means that although the industry has exceeded the 2007 requirements, they would be unable to apply these credits after 12 months. My bill would accommodate the uncertain levels of production from year to year. Considering the myriad variables involved in the ethanol production process including crop yields, land use, and feed stock prices, it only makes sense to allow more flexibility.

Another fix extends the small refinery exemption by 2 years. This language also does nothing to change mandated levels. A small refinery produces less than 75,000 barrels average daily aggregate and EPACT exempts these facilities from the renewable fuels numbers until 2011. These refineries are dealing with drastically smaller economies of scale in production. In order to protect these refineries from potential economic hardship and subsequent job loss, this exemption should be extended from the year 2011 to 2013.

I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and quickly pass the bill I am introducing today.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, today I rise to express my support for an effort that I believe is long overdue. I am honored today to join Senator Inouye as a co-sponsor of the U.S. Army Commemorative Coin Act of 2008. As co-chair of the Senate Army Caucus and a former soldier, I am proud to pay tribute to the U.S. Army, which has dutifully served our Nation for over 230 years.

The Army is the only service branch that currently does not have a comprehensive museum honoring its members and veterans. The Commemorative Coin Act will help raise the revenue needed to build a museum dedicated to the men and women who have for so long protected the sovereignty and freedom of our country. The museum will serve to commemorate the enormous sacrifice of our soldiers, and will be a symbol of the Army's dedication to the fight for freedom.

Since the days of the Continental Army of the Revolution, to the highly mobile and technological force of today, the U.S. Army has been the bulwark against which tyranny and oppression have consistently failed. It is time we permanently memorialize the sacrifice that the U.S. Army has given to the cause of liberty around the world.

I urge the Congress to quickly grant its approval to the U.S. Army Commemorative Coin Act of 2008.