Floor Statements

Mr. President, the world has reacted with horror and revulsion at the Burmese junta's recent brutal crackdown against peaceful demonstrators. In crushing the Saffron Revolution, killing hundreds and jailing thousands, including countless Buddhist monks, the junta has left no doubt about its blatant disregard for basic human decency. We, as Americans, stand on the side of freedom, not fear; of peace, not violence; and of the millions in Burma who aspire to a better life, not those who would keep them isolated and oppressed.

Our response must go beyond statements of condemnation, and the time to act is now. That is why today I am introducing the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007 in the U.S. Senate. This legislation imposes meaningful and effective punitive action against the cruel, thuggish, and illegitimate Burmese government. We must not sit idly by while the junta continues to deprive the Burmese people of their fundamental human rights.

This legislation would impose targeted sanctions against Burmese officials who played a direct role in the violent repression of peaceful political dissent, and also against those who provide, or have provided, substantial political and economic support for the junta. These individuals would be subject to a visa ban and a ban on business dealings with any United States entity or person. This legislation would also close a loophole that exists in current U.S. import policy that allows imports of Burmese gems and hardwoods, which together add tens of millions of dollars to the junta's coffers. It would eliminate the remaining U.S. energy investment in Burma's gas sector and significantly increase U.S. Government support for democracy in Burma.

Specifically, the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007: states that it is the policy of the United States to condemn the Burmese junta's continued repressions, support the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people, provide support to aid a democratic transition in Burma, and hold accountable those individuals responsible for the ongoing repression; imposes targeted financial sanctions against Burmese officials who played a direct role in the violent repression of peaceful political dissent, and also against those who provide, or have provided, substantial political and economic support for the junta government; imposes a visa ban on these individuals; prohibits the importation of Burmese gems and hardwoods, including materials that are mined or harvested in Burma but shaped, cut, or assembled in other countries not subject to current U.S. sanctions; prohibits investment in Burma by U.S. companies, including investment agreements reached prior to the imposition of the May 20, 1997 sanctions; permits the President to terminate sanctions once the Government of Burma has: unconditionally released all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy; entered into a substantive dialogue with democratic forces on a transition to democratic government under the rule of law; allowed humanitarian access to populations affected by armed conflict in all regions of Burma; authorizes $20 million for FY 2008 and FY 2009 in aid to democracy activists in Burma, for the expansion of radio and television broadcasting into Burma, and for support to individuals and groups compiling evidence of the junta's crimes; expresses the sense of Congress that the Director of National Intelligence should target intelligence resources to identify those responsible for the crackdown and for other human rights abuses; authorizes the Secretary of State to fund the establishment of an independent, searchable, Internet database that would compile evidence of human rights abuses in Burma, permitting increased international research aimed at holding human rights abusers accountable; requires a report by the Secretary of State on international sources of military aid to the Burmese regime.

The next phase of political life in Burma has begun. The junta's thugs cannot forever postpone the blossoming of freedom and democracy within its nation's borders. By enacting the Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007, the Congress can help ensure that they do not. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Graham, along with Senators Gregg, McConnell, Vitter, Corker, Kyl, Domenici, Chambliss, Cornyn, Sununu, Specter, Isakson and Tester, in sponsoring this important amendment. This amendment would set aside $3 billion in emergency funding to help better secure our nation's borders.

We are facing a crisis on our southern border. Every day, hundreds of people sneak across our borders, many through the State of Arizona. While the majority of these individuals are coming here to look for work, some of these illegal border crossers are criminals and people intending to do our Nation harm. The current situation is a national security crisis and we must take action to address it.

The amendment Senator Graham has offered would designate $3 billion in emergency funding to establish operational control of our international land borders. These funds would be used to hire more full-time border patrol agents as well as install double layer permanent fencing and vehicle barriers. The amendment also calls for the instillation of unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, and cameras. In order to deter further illegal immigration, the amendment directs funds to be used to continue the Department of Homeland Security's, DHS, efforts to end ``catch-and release'' programs. If an immigrant knows he will face mandatory incarceration if caught crossing the border, that immigrant may not choose to take that risk. Also, through this amendment, funds would be made available to reimburse state and localities for costs related to cooperative agreements they have entered into with DHS that allows them to assist in the efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants. The funds made available by this amendment would provide on-the-ground, real time assets that will help DHS to secure our Nation's borders in a 21st century way.

The final piece of the Graham amendment would address the need to improve the employment eligibility verification system by directing $60 million to be set aside to enhance the ability of employers to verify employment eligibility. Without an effective, accurate, and accessible employment verification system undocumented immigrants will continue to be hired because they will never truly have to prove that they are legally allowed to work. We need to do away with the archaic paper- based system and utilize technology in a way that allows employers to instantaneously know if the person standing before them is who they say they are and whether or not that person can be hired legally. We must improve this system to help the government to prosecute unscrupulous employers and ensure that they are hiring and employing legal workers.

The measures outlined and funded in the Graham amendment are critical to our border security efforts and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 is one of the most important of the appropriations measures that we will consider this year. This legislation will provide critical funding for the men and women in our Armed Forces who, at this very moment, are in harm's way. Because we must continue to support them, I support the passage of this bill, but I have serious concerns over the earmarks contained in the committee report accompanying this bill.

The bill reported out of committee appropriates over $448 billion. This is more than $3.5 billion below the President's request and, notably, does not include any additional funds for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As is the case with so many of the appropriations bills that come to the floor, the report accompanying it contains numerous earmarks that were neither requested nor authorized, to the tune of over $5 billion. During a time of war, we should be making every effort to support the President's budget request instead of slashing it and then adding earmarks for favored projects.

Every day, we ask the brave men and women who fight for freedom on behalf of our great Nation, and their families, to make sacrifices. They sacrifice in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere throughout the globe. We in the Congress should exercise some degree of self-restraint and sacrifice, as well.

Let me mention a few of the add-ons that were included in the bill's accompanying report: $2 million for a project involving brown tree snakes; a total of $3 million for an electronic futures trading program; $2 million for research on high-pressure microwave processing for meals-ready-to-eat; $2 million for the Marines to buy boot socks cushioned with merino wool; $2 million to buy extended cold-weather gloves for the Army; $2 million for research on a technology that extracts pure water from the air; $2 million for research on a multispectral fingerprint device; $4 million to study the Northern Lights; $6.5 million for small instrument development for Magdalena Ridge Observatory; and $10 million for Eielson Utilidors.

Once again, there are also many earmarks that may be for worthy causes, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be funded through this legislation. These earmarks include $150 million for a peer-reviewed breast cancer research program; $80 million for a similar prostate cancer research program; $10 million for ovarian cancer research; $27.5 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network; $10 million to a program called Ceros, for river and oceanic research; $6.1 million for research on a new engine called homopolar hybrid drive; $2 million for research into putting humans into a state similar to hibernation so they can be kept alive long enough for doctors to administer treatments; and $3 million for research for a 2D-3D face-recognition system.

As we are engaged fully in the global war on terror, it is imperative that we get the most out of each and every defense dollar. The money that is being diverted to projects like the ones I have mentioned could instead be used for body armor or other critical needs to protect our troops and help win the war on terror. The earmarks I have mentioned are just a small sampling of the many unrequested earmarks that fill the accompanying report. These earmarks are draining our precious resources and are not vital to our long-term national security. I strongly encourage the Federal agencies affected to use their judgement to ensure they are not allocating resources to projects that are not legislatively mandated or authorized but rather, are merely the wish lists of the committee.

In the report accompanying the bill, there are several authorizing provisions, which by their nature have no place in an appropriations vehicle, including language directing the Air Force to provide funding to continue the operation of the 36th Rescue Flight assigned to Fairchild AFB in Washington State and a provision requiring funding for Naval archeology programs in the Lake Champlain Basin.

Similarly, in the bill, a provision directs the Air Force to complete upgrades and additions to Alaskan range infrastructure and training areas, as well as at Hickman AFB in Hawaii. A similar provision calls for $3 million to be spent on upgrades and maintenance at the Pacific Missile Range Facility. Another provision prohibits the disestablishment of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron in Mississippi.

Some of these authorizing provisions are outside of the scope of defense policy, including language providing for the Navy to transfer up to $20 million

to the Interior Department for any expenses associated with the construction of the USS Arizona Memorial Museum and Visitors Center.

I would also like to discuss the ``Buy America'' restrictions that cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers. Like in previous appropriations bills, this year's bill imposes a number of ``Buy America'' restrictions. For example, the bill would prevent the Defense Department's purchase of particular welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain; carbon alloy or armor steel plate; ball and roller bearings, unless they are manufactured in the United States. It would put similar restrictions on the Department's buying public vessels, food, certain textile materials, particular Navy supply ships, as well as its purchase of coal as a fuel source for certain military installations in Germany. Another ``Buy America'' provision prohibits the Department's buying any supercomputer that is not manufactured in the United States.

I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of policies as protectionist. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions, such as those contained in this bill, could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners.

I have no doubt that some of these provisions may be important while others are questionable at best. What is important is that we follow the authorization process and restrain ourselves from using appropriations bills to authorize projects on this bill that have not been requested by the Department of Defense, nor approved by the authorizing committee.

Mr. President, there can be no doubt that this legislation is very important to the ultimate success of our ongoing war on terror. Yet I believe it is important to point out to the American taxpayer where some of their money is going and some of it is not going to projects that have anything to do with our defense.

Mr. President, I would like to express my strong opposition to the conference report on the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The legislation being considered today far exceeds the already outrageous spending that was approved in both the House- and Senate-passed bills and would drastically increase the backlog of Army Corps of Engineers construction projects while doing nothing to modernize the system for funding these projects. I wonder, did we learn nothing from Hurricane Katrina?

In August of 2005, this Nation witnessed a horrible national disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy beyond compare, more so than our Nation had seen in decades. Almost 2 years later, the gulf coast region is still trying to rebuild, and there is a long road ahead. I thought that we had learned a few lessons from this tragedy, but as our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the reconstruction effort, we are now being asked to quickly approve a conference report that only perpetuates the problems with both the funding and management of the Corps of Engineers.

During Senate consideration of this bill, Senator Feingold offered an amendment that I was pleased to cosponsor that would have established a system to give clarity to the process used for funding Corps projects. Of course, that amendment was not adopted. It is unacceptable to me that this Congress isn't interested in how best to allocate our limited Corps resources or how taxpayer dollars would be used most effectively. My question is, What is wrong with having some concept of what our Nation's priorities are for waterworks projects? Why are we rejecting policies to help us identify where the greatest infrastructure needs are? Are people worried that showing the American people how their money is really being spent may result in their pet project being moved down the list for funding?

Today's practice, as illustrated again by this legislation, allows a Member of Congress to get a project authorized and funded without having any idea of how that project affects the overall infrastructure of our Nation's waterways--or whether it is even needed. There is already a $58 billion backlog in Corps projects, and the bill before us increases that backlog by an additional $23.2 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is a 40-percent increase in the size of the existing backlog. Yet consider how much funding the Corps receives annually on average--$2 billion. Anyone can do the math and realize that we are perpetuating a significant problem. But that won't stop so many of my colleagues from congratulating themselves on passage of this bill--a bill the White House intends to veto.

I find it particularly ironic that just before the August recess this body claimed to be turning a new page and taking significant steps toward ending the process of secret earmarks and porkbarrel politics when it passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. This bill is beyond more of the same with over 900 projects, up from 600 projects in both the Senate and the House passed bills. As stated in a recent letter from the Director of OMB and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, ``Because the conference version of H.R. 1495 significantly exceeds the cost of either the House or Senate bill and contains other unacceptable provisions discussed below, the President will veto the bill.'' I applaud the President's vow to veto this bill.

While the bill before us today includes an ``independent'' review process in name, as Senator Feingold and I have pushed for during debate on the last two Senate-passed bills, the conference report provision does not promote true independent review at all. Senator Feingold and I championed language that would have established a process by which the planning and design of Corps projects could be reviewed by a panel of experts. As stated by an editorial in the Washington Post on August 6, 2007, entitled ``Watered Down,'' ``The Corps has a long history of overly rosy environmental and economic analysis of such projects, tailored to the political needs of its funders in Congress. Review of Corps projects by independent experts would deter such behavior, which threatens not only the federal budget but public safety. The Senate version of the legislation was very tough on this point.'' I will ask to have the editorial printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

The legislation before us drastically dilutes the Senate-passed provision and gives the Corps undue influence over this panel. The review process will actually be housed within the Corps rather than outside the agency as the Senate bill required, and the Corps' Chief of Engineers is also given significant authority to decide the timing of review, the projects to be reviewed, and whether to implement a review panel's recommendations. This new system will only compound the problems with an agency that has brought about countless mismanaged and incredibly expensive construction and maintenance projects.

I believe this conference report is fundamentally flawed in many ways, not the least of which is its cost. As stated by the Tax Payers for Common Sense, ``In High School Civics students learn that conference committees are where lawmakers hash out the differences between House and Senate bills. But in the case of WRDA (H.R. 1495), the Corps of Engineers water projects bill, a $14 billion Senate bill met a $15 billion house and ballooned into a whopping $21 billion monster. . . . The ultimate price tag will be far higher because of numerous policy changes that are intended to shift costs from who benefits onto the federal taxpayer. For these reasons, the President did the right thing by promising to veto the bill if it gets to his desk. . . . Lawmakers should start over again and come back with a fiscally responsible bill that includes stronger policy reforms for independent peer review of costly, controversial, or critical projects, modernized economic guidance and creates a system to prioritize

limited federal funding. All these proposals will save taxpayers in the long term.''

Mr. President, it is time that we end this process of blind spending, throwing money at projects that may or may not benefit the larger good. It is time for us to take a post-Katrina look at the world and learn from our experiences over the past years instead of being content with business as usual. Shouldn't we be doing all that we can to reform the Corps and ensure that the most urgent projects are being funded and constructed? Or are we more content with needless earmarks--too often at the expense of projects that are of most need?

I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.

Mr. President, I ask to have the editorial to which I referred printed in the Record.

The article follows.

[From the Washington Post, Aug. 6, 2007]

Watered Down

Another pork-laden bill for the Army Corps of Engineers contains modest

checks on future projects

When Last we checked, the Water Resources Development Act

was a $14 billion bill larded with pork-barrel projects. Now

it is a $21 billion bill, having taken on still more pork in

a House-Senate conference committee, and it appears headed

for passage. One small factor in the bill's growth was the

addition, during the closed-door conference, of tens of

millions of dollars' worth of pet projects not previously

debated in either chamber. Interestingly enough, Congress has

also just passed an ethics bill that was arguably designed,

in part, to prevent this sort of thing. But that legislation

has not yet taken effect.

Of greater concern are the bill's provisions for

independent review of proposed dams, levees and other

projects to be built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The

Corps has a long history of overly rosy environmental and

economic analysis of such projects, tailored to the political

needs of its funders in Congress. Review of Corps projects by

independent experts would deter such behavior, which

threatens not only the federal budget but public safety.

The Senate version of the legislation was very tough on

this point. It would have required peer review of projects

costing $40 million or more and permitted state governors,

federal agencies and the general public to initiate mandatory

peer reviews of other projects. It would have created a

separate federal office to oversee the reviews, and it stated

explicitly that federal courts did not have to defer to the

Corps' reasoning when the agency decided to reject the

findings of an independent panel. But, after negotiations

between the Senate and the House, which favored a nearly

toothless process, the final bill leaves out much of the

Senate language: It raises the minimum dollar amount

slightly, to $45 million, and says that only governors, not

federal agencies or public interest groups, can call for

mandatory peer review. The Corps can waive review of smaller

projects where it sees no environmental issues. Inexplicably,

the peer review law expires in seven years.

The good news is that the bill requires the Corps to assign

the reviews to the respected National Academy of Sciences; it

also wisely permits reviewers to consider a wide range of

issues. President Bush has understandably threatened a veto

because of the bill's cost, but there are more than enough

votes to override. Imperfect as it is, this bill is likely to

become law. Supporters of the compromise, such as Sen.

Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and

Public Works Committee, say that their tough oversight will

make it work, a promise that will itself be tested in the

months ahead.

Mr. President, with this vote, the Senate faces, once again, a simple choice: whether to build on the successes of our new strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support needed to carry out their mission, or to ignore the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby the terrible consequences that will ensue.

Many Senators wished to postpone this choice, preferring to await the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Last week these two career officers reported unambiguously that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. After nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, the situation on the ground in Iraq shows demonstrable signs of progress. Understanding what we now know--that our military is making progress on the ground, and that their commanders request from us the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is beginning to show real results.

General Petraeus reported in detail on these gains during his testimony in both Houses and in countless interviews. The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, said yesterday that the 7-month-old security operation has reduced violence in Baghdad by some 50 percent, that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and that civilian casualties have dropped from a high of 32 per day to 12 per day. His comments were echoed by LTG Abboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander, who said that before the surge began, one third of Baghdad's 507 districts were under insurgent control. Today, he said, ``only five to six districts can be called hot areas.'' Anyone who has traveled recently to Anbar, or Diyala, or Baghdad, can see the improvements that have taken place over the past months. With violence down, commerce has risen and the bottom-up efforts to forge counterterrorism alliances are bearing tangible fruit.

None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have suddenly become safe, or that violence has come down to acceptable levels. As General Odierno pointed out, violence is still too high and there are many unsafe areas. Nevertheless, such positive developments illustrate General Petraeus's contention last week that American and Iraqi forces have achieved substantial progress under their new strategy.

No one can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects. We can be sure, however, that should the United States Congress succeed in terminating the strategy by legislating an abrupt withdrawal and a transition to a new, less effective and more dangerous course--should we do that, then we will fail for certain.

Let us make no mistake about the costs of such an American failure in Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should the amendment we are currently considering become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure.

We cannot set a date for withdrawal without setting a date for surrender. Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safehavens and regional war. We invite further Iranian influence at a time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons, training fighters, providing resources, and helping plan operations to kill American soldiers and damage our efforts to bring stability to Iraq. If any of my colleagues remain unsure of Iran's intentions in the region, may I direct them to the recent remarks of the Iranian president, who said: ``The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly . . . Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.'' If our notions of national security have any meaning, they cannot include permitting the establishment of an Iranian dominated Middle East that is roiled by wider regional war and riddled with terrorist safehavens.

The hour is indeed late in Iraq. How we have arrived at this critical and desperate moment has been well chronicled, and history's judgment about the long catalogue of mistakes in the prosecution of this war will be stern and unforgiving. But history will revere the honor and the sacrifice of those Americans, who despite the mistakes and failures of both civilian and military leaders, shouldered a rifle and risked everything--everything--so that the country they love so well might not suffer the many dangerous consequences of defeat.

That is what General Petraeus, and the Americans he has the honor to command, are trying to do--to fight smarter and better, in a way that addresses and doesn't strengthen the tactics of the enemy, and to give the Iraqis the security and opportunity to make the necessary political decisions to save their country from the abyss of genocide and a permanent and spreading war. Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve. We must remain steadfast in our mission, for we do not fight only for the interests of Iraqis, Mr. President, we fight for ours as well.

In this moment of serious peril for America, we must all of us remember to who and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the American people and to the ideals upon which we our Nation was founded. That responsibility is our dearest privilege and to be judged by history to have discharged it honorably will, in the end, matter so much more to all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral advantage or office. I hope we might all have good reason to expect a kinder judgment of our flaws and follies because when it mattered most we chose to put the interests of this great and good Nation before our own, and helped, in our own small way, preserve for all humanity the magnificent and inspiring example of an assured, successful and ever advancing America and the ideals that make us still the greatest Nation on Earth.

Mr. President, could I say I thank Senator Levin, Senator Reid, and Senator Biden. Senator Lieberman and Senator Kyl will be discussing their amendment, which is a very important amendment concerning Iran so that everybody will have a good idea, and they will be discussing it again on Monday--or debating it. I would hope, as the distinguished chairman has said, that we could probably vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment very shortly after the vote on the Biden amendment, yet we are unable to put that in concrete. There may be a side by side, there may not be.

I wish to remind my colleagues again, if I could, this is the 13th day of debate now, and we have had 79 hours of debate on this bill. The Wounded Warriors legislation is still waiting, the pay raise, so many other things that are vital to, I believe, the men and women who are serving and the security of this Nation. What I hope--and I know Senator Levin who is managing this bill would agree--is that once we finish the Iraq issue, we should be able to move through the other amendments rather quickly. We are obviously running out of time. The first of October is upon us. So I hope we can finish the Iraq amendments as quickly as possible and move on to the 100 or so amendments we have on the bill itself. I thank the chairman for all of the cooperation and hard work he has done on this bill.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I agree. I will make every effort to do that. I am confident that no one on this side would object. It has to be done. Everyplace I go, I hear concern and the continued outrage about the situation that existed at Walter Reed, and the American people are not confident that we have taken the necessary measures to provide for the care of our veterans.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I think the distinguished chairman and I have had a conversation that, following that, for the benefit of our colleagues, we would move to the Feingold amendment and with it we will seek a time agreement. Then with the cooperation of our colleagues, we will at least try as much as possible to dispose of Iraq amendments today, if we could.

I remind my colleagues we still have the basis of this bill, which has Wounded Warriors, pay raises, housing, training, and equipping of the men and women of the Armed Forces. We do have a number of pending amendments on the bill. I think, in fairness, we should try to dispose of the Iraq issue as soon as possible so we could move on to the rest of the bill and pass it so we can get to conference and get it signed. There are vital parts of this bill on which the chairman and members of the Armed Services Committee have worked literally months, and I hope we could get to that aspect of the legislation as well.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Levin. I want to mention this: Is it the chairman's understanding that after that, we would probably go to the Levin-Reed amendment and have a time agreement following that? Is it also the chairman's understanding that any Iraq- related amendment would probably be a 60-vote requirement? Finally, is it also the understanding of the chairman that at 3 p.m. today we would expect all amendments to be filed on this bill?

I do not object.

Also, if I could be recognized briefly.

Mr. President, I remind my colleagues--and I again thank the chairman, Senator Levin. I think we have had an excellent degree of accommodation, with occasional differences of opinion. But I appreciate his leadership. I remind my colleagues this is the 12th day of debate on this bill. The total time of debate has been 69 hours. We still have not gotten to the body of the legislation. That is 12 days, 69 hours.

I know this is called a ``deliberative'' body, but we are now reaching the limits of that description. So I hope all of our colleagues will work with us to dispose--hopefully today--of the Iraq- related amendments, and then we can close out the filing of amendments on the bill itself and, hopefully, have some kind of agreement to dispose of this legislation.

Again, as we have pointed out several times, on this legislation is the Wounded Warrior legislation, for our veterans, a pay raise, and so many other important aspects of the legislation. We don't want us, for the first time in more than 46 years, not to pass this important bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one final comment. I am not sure I will need all the time on this side for this amendment. We have debated this amendment before, and I alert my colleagues that perhaps we can vote earlier than the 2-hour time that is involved.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from Wisconsin. I would prefer to be discussing other reform issues with him than this one, but this is an important amendment.

As usual, the Senator from Wisconsin makes a passionate and persuasive case. Unfortunately, the pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces within 90 days of enactment and cut off funds for our troops in Iraq after June 30, 2008. One exception would be for a small force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions.

The Senate, once again, faces a simple choice: Do we build on the successes of our new strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support needed to carry out their mission or do we ignore the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue? That is the choice we must make, and though politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one direction, we have a greater responsibility, in my view, a duty to make decisions with the security of this great and good Nation foremost in our minds.

We now have the benefit of the long-anticipated testimony delivered by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, testimony that reported unambiguously that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Understanding what we know now--that our military is making progress on the ground and that their commanders request from us the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is beginning to show real results.

We see today that after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, the situation on the ground in Iraq is showing demonstrable signs of progress. The final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus's new counterinsurgency plan have been in place for over 2 months, and our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making significant gains in a number of areas.

General Petraeus reported in detail on these gains during his testimony in both Houses and in countless interviews. The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, GEN Ray Odierno, said today--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article today by AP concerning General Odierno's comments saying ``that a seven-month old security operation has reduced violence by 50 percent in Baghdad but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate.''

He said that the violence, as I said, has been reduced by some 50 percent, that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest levels in a year, and that civilian casualties have dropped from a high of 32 per day to 12 per day.

His comments were echoed by LTG Abboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander, who said that before the surge began, one-third of Baghdad's 507 districts were under insurgents' control. Today, he said, only five to six districts can be called hot areas.

I want to be clear to my friend from Wisconsin and my colleagues, none of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have suddenly become safe or that violence has come down to acceptable levels. As General Odierno pointed out, violence is still too high and there are many unsafe areas. Nevertheless, such positive developments illustrate General Petraeus's contention last week that American and Iraqi forces have achieved substantial progress under their new strategy.

The road in Iraq remains, as it always has been, long and hard. The Maliki government remains paralyzed and unwilling to function as it must, and other difficulties abound. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects. We can be sure, however, that should the Congress succeed in terminating the new strategy by legislating an abrupt withdrawal and a transition to a new, less effective, and more dangerous course--should we do that, then we will fail for certain.

I wish to remind all of my colleagues of a statement made by the President of Iran approximately 1 week ago. Every American should hear this statement. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad declared yesterday that U.S. political influence in Iraq was ``collapsing rapidly,'' and said Tehran was ready to help fill any power vacuum. He stated at a news conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq:

The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly.

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

course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of

neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with

the help of the Iraqi Nation.

That is what this is about. That is what this is about. Let us make no mistake about the cost of such an American failure in Iraq. In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee last week, General Petraeus referred to an August Defense Intelligence Agency report that stated:

A rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of

strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of

dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of

the Iraqi Security Forces; a rapid deterioration of local

security initiatives; al-Qaida-Iraq regaining lost ground and

freedom of maneuver; a marked increase in violence and

further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; and

exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics,

especially with respect to Iran.

These are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope the supporters of such a move will tell us how they intend to address the chaos and catastrophe that would surely follow such a course of action. Should this amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe Iraq would become more or less stable? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or even likelier? That al-Qaida will find it easier to gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal will somehow make this less likely?

No matter where my colleagues came down in 2002 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Earlier this month, GEN Jim Jones, who was widely quoted by opponents of this new strategy, testified before the Armed Services Committee and outlined what he believes to be the consequences of such a course.

A precipitous departure which results in a failed state in

Iraq, will have a significant boost in the numbers of

extremists, jihadists in the world, who will believe they

will have toppled the major power on earth and that all else

is possible. And I think it will not only make us less safe;

it will make our friends and allies less safe. And the

struggle will continue. It will simply be done in different

and in other areas.

I don't see how General Jones could have made himself more clear and succinct, and yet I continue to hear selective quotes from his commissioned reports and his testimony that somehow would lead people to believe he would support such a proposal as being made today by my friend from Wisconsin.

Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safe havens, and regional war. We invite further Iranian influence at a time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons, training fighters, providing resources, and helping plan operations to kill American soldiers and damage our efforts to bring stability to Iraq. If our notions of national security have any meaning, they cannot include permitting the establishment of an Iranian-dominated Middle East that is roiled by wider regional war and riddled with terrorist safe havens.

The supporters of this amendment respond they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al-Qaida. On the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al-Qaida and other international terrorist organizations.'' But such a provision draws a false distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence. Let us think about the implications of ordering American soldiers to target ``terrorists'' but not those who foment sectarian violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence? When the Madhi army attacks government police stations, are they acting as terrorists or as a militia? When AQI attacks a Shia village along the Diyala River, is that terrorism or sectarian violence? What about when an American soldier comes across some unknown assailant burying an IED in the road? Must he check for an al-Qaida identity card before responding?

The obvious answer is such acts very often constitute terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are deeply intertwined. To try to make an artificial distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence is to fundamentally misunderstand al-Qaida's strategy, which is to incite sectarian violence. It is interesting that some supporters of this amendment embrace the recent GAO report, which said it could not distinguish between sectarian violence and other forms of violence because that would require determining an intent--an impossible task. Yet these same supporters would have our troops in the field attempt to do just that. Our military commanders say trying to artificially separate counterterrorism from counterinsurgency will not succeed, and that moving in with search-and-destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy is the failed strategy of the past 4 years. We should not and must not return to such a disastrous course.

The strategy General Petraeus has put into place--a traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes protecting the population, which gets our troops out of the bases and into the areas they are trying to protect, and which supplies sufficient force levels to carry out the mission--is the correct one. It has become clear by now we cannot set a date for withdrawal without setting a date for surrender.

This fight is about Iraq, but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war. Consider one final statement from the August National Intelligence Estimate. It reads:

We assess that changing the mission of the Coalition forces

from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to

a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and

counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing

a safe haven would erode any security gains achieved thus

far.

Should we pass this amendment, we would erode the security gains our brave men and women have fought so hard to achieve and embark on the road of surrender. For the sake of American interests, our national values, the future of Iraq, and the stability of the Middle East, we must not send our country down this disastrous course. All of us want our troops to come home, and to come home as soon as possible. But we should want our soldiers to return to us with honor, the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid with the ultimate sacrifice. We have many responsibilities to the people who elected us, but one responsibility outweighs all the others, and that is to protect this great and good Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Feingold amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, we are about to have a vote. I again thank my friend from Wisconsin for the level of this debate. My only comment and conclusion is that I urge my colleagues to reject an amendment that basically returns the failed strategy we had for nearly 4 years. I keep hearing, as I did from the majority leader, it is time to change course, time to change course. Well, we did change course, thank God; that new course has been succeeding. Do we have a long, hard struggle ahead? Of course we do. After a few months of the new strategy--and I recognize the other challenges, such as the political one and the Maliki Government and the police. But I am convinced the new strategy can succeed and the consequences of failure, as outlined by people who were opponents for the war in Iraq initially--this course of action, going back to the old failed strategy would lead to chaos, destruction, deterioration, and an eventual return on the part of American military people with further service and sacrifice.

I again thank my friend from Wisconsin for his level of debate. I respect

very much his commitment to the security of this Nation.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Reserving the right to object, I will not object. I wish to make it clear, according to the discussions the chairman and I had, the next amendment that would be offered would be the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, and this--we are not exactly sure when that happens, because we are not sure at what point we return to the Biden amendment. It could be possible, if we are not prepared to resume debate on the Biden amendment, we could begin debate on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. But, in any case, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment would be scheduled for consideration depending on how it fits in with the Biden amendment.

I hope I was not confusing in that comment.

Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the chairman and the Senator from Rhode Island that would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Again, we find ourselves on the floor of this Chamber debating an amendment that is nearly identical to one that failed 2 months ago. The pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces within 90 days of enactment, leaving a smaller force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions. And the Senate faces, once again-- faces again--a simple choice: whether to build on the successes of our new strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support needed to carry out their mission or to ignore the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue.

Many Senators wished to postpone this choice, preferring to await the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Last week, these two career officers reported unambiguously that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Knowing what we now know--that our military is making progress on the ground, and that their commanders request from us the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--a measure of courage is required, not the great courage exhibited by those brave men and women fighting on our behalf but a smaller measure, the courage necessary to put America's interests before every personal or political consideration.

It is important that as we proceed with consideration of this amendment, we spend a few moments reviewing the current state of affairs in Iraq. We see today that after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, the situation on the ground in Iraq shows demonstrable signs of progress. The final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus's new counterinsurgency plan have been in place for over 2 months, and our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making significant gains in a number of areas.

General Petraeus reported in detail on these gains during his testimony in both Houses and in countless interviews. The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, LT GEN Ray Odierno, said today the 7-month-old security operation has reduced violence in Baghdad by some 50 percent, car bombings and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and civilian casualties have dropped from a high of 32 per day to 12 per day. His comments are echoed by LT GEN Abboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander who said that before the surge began, one-third of Baghdad's 507 districts were under insurgent control. Today, he said: ``Only 5 to 6 districts can be called hot areas.'' Anyone who has traveled recently to Anbar, Diyala or Baghdad can see the improvements that have taken place over the past months. With violence down, commerce has risen, and bottom-up efforts to forge counterterrorism alliances are bearing tangible fruit.

None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have suddenly become safe or that violence has come down to acceptable levels. As General Odierno pointed out, violence is still too high and there are many unsafe areas. Nevertheless, such positive developments illustrate General Petraeus's contention last week that American and Iraqi forces have achieved substantial progress under their new strategy.

It is instructive to reflect on how far some areas have come. One year ago, in September of 2006--1 year ago, September 2006--The Washington Post ran a story titled: ``Situation Called Dire in West Iraq; Anbar is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says.'' After an offensive by U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaned al-Qaida fighters out of Ramadi and other areas of western Anbar, the province's tribal sheiks, disgusted by the brutality and blatant disregard for human life exhibited by their aggressors, broke formally with the terrorists and joined the coalition side. As a result, Anbar, which last year stood as Iraq's most dangerous province, is now one of its safest.

By the way, many critics of the war say that change would have happened without the surge. That is patently false. The fact is, when the sheiks decided to come over to our side, a brave colonel named MacFarland immediately sent 4,000 marines to protect them, and General Petraeus has testified that if they hadn't had those troops, then we probably would not have seen Anbar in the condition that it is in today.

I asked General Petraeus, and he said the following:

The success in Anbar Province, correctly, is a political

success--

By the way, something we all seek----

But it is a political success that has been enabled, very

much, by our forces who have been enabled by having

additional forces in Anbar Province.

Ambassador Crocker added:

Such scenes are also unfolding in parts of Diyala and

Ninewa, where Iraqis have immobilized with the help of

Coalition and Iraqi security forces.

So as we all know, without military security, there is no political progress, and that political progress is only enabled by the substantial military presence that was provided by the surge.

As in Anbar and elsewhere, where local populations have turned on al- Qaida's brutal methods, there are reports of Shia extremists encountering a similar reception. Recent attacks by the Mahdi Army on worshipers in the holy city of Karbala prompted a public backlash that led Muqtada al-Sadr to

order a suspension of all military actions by his followers against Iraqi and coalition forces.

In Baghdad, the military, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, continues to man joint security stations and deploy throughout the city in order to bring violence under control. These efforts have produced positive results. Sectarian violence has fallen since the beginning of the year. The total number of car bombings and suicide attacks declined, and the number of locals coming forward with intelligence tips has risen.

None of this is to suggest the road in Iraq remains anything but long and hard. Violence remains at unacceptable levels, the Maliki Government remains paralyzed and unwilling to function as it must, and other difficulties abound. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects. We can be sure, however, that should the Congress succeed in terminating the strategy by legislating an abrupt withdrawal and a transition to a new, less effective and more dangerous course-- should we do that, then we will fail for certain.

Let's make no mistakes about the costs of such an American failure in Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that should the amendment we are currently considering become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be back in Iraq and elsewhere. That is not just my view but that of General Jones and others, in many more desperate fights to protect our security and add an even greater cost in American lives and treasure.

In testimony before the Armed Services Committee last week, General Petraeus referred to an August Defense Intelligence Agency report that stated:

A rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of

strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of

dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of

the Iraqi security forces, a rapid deterioration of local

security initiatives, al-Qaida-Iraq regaining lost ground and

freedom of maneuver, a marked increase in violence, and

further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; an

exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics,

especially with respect to Iran.

Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope the supporters of such a move will tell us how they intend to address the chaos and catastrophe that would surely follow such a course of action.

No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Earlier this month, GEN Jim Jones testified before the Armed Services Committee on the effects of such a course.

The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al-Qaida. On the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward-operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say this approach will not succeed and that moving in with search-and-destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed Rumsfeld strategy of the past nearly 4 years. We should not and must not return to such a disastrous course.

It has become clear by now that we cannot set a date for withdrawal without setting a date for surrender. Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safe havens, and regional war. We invite further Iranian influence at a time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons, training fighters, providing resources, and helping plan operations to kill American soldiers and damage our efforts to bring stability to Iraq. If any of my colleagues remain unsure of Iran's intentions in the region, may I direct them to the recent remarks of the Iranian President who said:

The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly.

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

course, we are prepared to fill the gap.

If our notions of national security have any meaning, they cannot include permitting the establishment of an Iranian-dominated Middle East that is roiled by a wider regional war and riddled with terrorist safe havens.

The hour is indeed late in Iraq. How we have arrived at this critical and desperate moment has been well chronicled, and history's judgment about the long catalog of mistakes in the prosecution of this war will be stern and unforgiving. But history will revere the honor and sacrifice of those Americans who, despite the mistakes and failures of both civilian and military leaders, shouldered a rifle and risked everything so the country they love so well might not suffer the many dangerous consequences of defeat.

That is what General Petraeus and the Americans he has the honor to command are trying to do--to fight smarter and better in a way that addresses and doesn't strengthen the tactics of the enemy and to give the Iraqis the security and opportunity to make the necessary political decisions to save their country from the abyss of genocide and a permanent and spreading war. Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve. We must remain steadfast in this new mission, for we do not fight only for the interests of Iraqis, we fight for ours as well.

In this moment of serious peril for America, we must all of us remember to whom and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the American people and the ideals upon which our Nation was founded.

This is the same amendment that was rejected 2 months ago. In the intervening 2 months, our opposition to this amendment has been validated by the progress on the ground of the military strategy which General Petraeus designed and our brave young Americans who are serving have implemented. So we are here 2 months later with tangible success on the ground and addressing the same amendment. The effect of this amendment would return us to the failed strategy of nearly 4 years ago. If there was any doubt the last time in anybody's mind about whether we should go back to that failed strategy of the past or we should continue with this successful strategy, I think the events of the last 2 months, since we rejected this amendment the last time, should convince the objective observers.

So I hope my colleagues will understand this debate and this amendment is very important, and it is very important to the security of the United States of America, the region. We must never forget that if we fail--if we fail--Americans will be called back sooner or later and called upon to make greater service and sacrifice.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend from Michigan. We would like to get a time agreement on debate on the Webb amendment, but I do not know how many speakers we have on our side. We will be proposing an amendment that has been put together by my other colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, as a sort of side-by-side effect.

I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for working on an amendment that I think expresses very clearly we all want all our troops home. We understand the stress and the strain that has been inflicted on the men and women in the military--and the Guard and Reserves--and we admire the motivation and the commitment of Senator Webb from Virginia. We are, obviously, in opposition to his amendment and think his colleague from Virginia has an alternative idea that expresses the will of practically all of us to relieve this burden on the men and women in the military.

So I wish to thank my friend from Michigan, and I also wish to say again, hopefully, within a relatively short period of time we can get a time agreement on debate and vote as soon as possible on this issue. This same amendment has been debated before in the Senate and it is pretty well known to our colleagues, although it is very clear that many want to speak on it because of its importance.

So I thank my friend from Michigan and both Senators from Virginia, for whom I have the greatest respect, and we will look forward to a rather unusual situation here in the Senate--a vote on a resolution by one Senator from Virginia and a resolution from another Senator from Virginia on the same issue. I look forward to this debate. I know it will be both educational and, I hope, enlightening and informative not only to our colleagues but to the American people.

Reserving the right to object, and I would not object, but I ask my friend from Michigan, will the vote on this amendment have a 60-vote requirement?

Mr. President, before I begin my comments on the pending amendment, I think--I hope it is appropriate to mention our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, has announced his intentions not to seek reelection in this body.

I have the highest degree of affection and respect for my friend; we have adjoining offices in the Russell Senate Office Building. He has served this Nation in many capacities, including in combat during the Vietnam War. I think he has been an outstanding Member of this body and a dear friend. I will say a lot more about him in many venues, but I wish to express my appreciation for his outstanding service in the Senate, to the people of Nebraska, and to this country.

On July 11 of this year, I spoke against Senator Webb's amendment on dwell time, as it is now called. The amendment has not changed substantially since then. I thought the debate at the time was comprehensive and adequately addressed the merits of the proposal. But here we are again. Here we are again. Why?

In July, Senator Webb said:

This is an amendment that is focused squarely on supporting

our troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan; it

speaks directly to their welfare and the needs of their

families by establishing minimum periods between deployments.

More recently, he has called it a ``safety net for the troops.'' I have no doubt of Senator Webb's sincerity and his concern for our ground troops and their families. No one in this body has served his family more honorably than Senator Webb.

I share Senator Webb's concerns for the well-being of our troops and their families, as I know all Senators do. But let me be clear: Senator Webb's amendment is not a litmus test for whether you care about the troops. Would it not be great if our choices were that easy.

I argued back in July, and I repeat today, that the amendment would do more harm than good and should not pass. But the question remains: Why are we arguing again? Why are we arguing again about this proposal?

Unfortunately, the reason is obvious. It was spelled out in a New York Times article on September 15, by David Herszenhorn and David Cloud, who stated:

The proposal by Senator Webb has strong support from top

Democrats who say that the practical effect would be to add

time between deployments and force General Petraeus to

withdraw troops on a substantially swifter timeline than the

one he laid out before Congress this week.

Senator Biden was quoted in the article as calling the proposal the ``easiest way for his Republican colleagues to change the war strategy,'' to change the war strategy. The reporters referred to the amendment as a ``backdoor approach'' aimed at influencing the conduct of the war. That is what this amendment is about.

I say to my colleagues, I will say it again and again, the President's present strategy is succeeding. If you want the troops out, support the present mission, support the mission that is succeeding. Don't say you support the troops when you do not support their mission. Excuse me, I support you but not the mission you are

embarking on today as you go out and put your life and limb on the line in a surge that is succeeding--that is succeeding.

We will have a lot of discussion on the floor of this body about the Maliki Government and the national police and the other challenges we have, but the military side of this is succeeding. This goes at the heart, this goes at the heart of the surge that is showing success in Anbar Province, in Baghdad, and other parts of Iraq.

Now, maybe someone does not agree with that. Maybe that is the point. But the effect of this amendment--the effect of this amendment--would be to emasculate this surge. That is why the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, sent a letter to my colleague, Senator Graham, which I intend to quote from in a minute. So what is this debate about? This debate is about whether we will force, as Senator Biden was quoted, as the easiest way for his Republican colleagues to change the war strategy, this backdoor approach aimed at influencing the conduct of the war.

Not only that, it is blatantly unconstitutional. Are we going to have, in conflicts the American people engage in--if it is unpopular with the American people, the way the Korean war was unpopular--and somehow designate who should stay and who should not and how long?

That is a micromanagement of the military that is very difficult to comprehend. The President is the Commander in Chief because he is the Commander in Chief. Nowhere in the Goldwater-Nickles bill, nowhere in the Constitution do I see the role for Congress to play in determining the parameters under which the men and women who have enlisted and are serving in the military, in an enterprise which the majority of this body voted to support, being embarked on.

Secretary Gates echoed this assessment last weekend in various interviews, stating the Webb amendment is:

Really pretty much a backdoor effort to get the President

to accelerate the drawdown so that it is an automatic kind of

thing, rather than based on conditions in Iraq.

So I would say to my colleagues, let's not conceal or fail to mention the intended effect or purpose of this amendment. I wish to repeat, every one of us, every one of us cares about the men and women who are serving in the military, every single one of us on an equal basis. It is clear that in the wake of General Petraeus's report, the majority has brought this back in order to reduce the numbers of fully trained and combat-experienced troops available to our military commanders and thus to force an accelerated drawdown of troops and units in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why don't we be clear about that? Let's consider the impact of this amendment on the force. The effect of the amendment would be to exclude fully trained, combat-experienced officers, NCOs, soldiers, and marines from military units that need them to perform in combat. I think we should ask the question: Will an unintended consequence of this amendment be to cause harm to our troops? I argued in July, as did various other Senators, that the amendment would cause harm to the mission, the units, and members who would have to succeed in combat despite the obstacle this amendment would impose.

Now we have the view of Secretary Gates to consider in a letter regarding the Webb amendment, which without objection, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

He said:

As drafted, the amendment would dramatically limit the

nation's ability to respond to other national security needs

while we remain engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan.

He said the amendment would cause the Army and Marine Corps to resort to force management options that would further damage the force and its effectiveness on the field and would result in the following actions for units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan:

Extension of units [in Iraq and Afghanistan] already

deployed beyond their current scheduled rotation.

Creating ``gaps'' in combat capability as units would

rotate home without a follow-on unit being available to

replace them.

This, in turn, would squeeze ``the ability to continue the . . . practice of overlapping unit rotations to achieve smooth hand-offs and minimize casualties.'' And minimize casualties. That seems important, minimizing casualties.

Secretary Gates goes on. The Webb amendment would:

Increase the use of `in-lieu of' units that are either

minimally or not normally trained for the assigned mission.

[Would] return to the cobbling together of new units from

other disparate units or unassigned personnel.

A practice discouraged by the adoption of a unit rotation policy. As a result of the Webb amendment, it would

result in the ``broader and more frequent mobilization of National Guard and Reserve units [which] would be inevitable.''

Secretary Gates, in his letter, said the Webb amendment would impose an unacceptable choice upon the President and our military to either, one, accelerate the rate of drawdown significantly beyond what General Petraeus has recommended, which he and all of our military commanders believe would not be prudent and would put at real risk the gains we have made on the ground in Iraq in the last few months; two, resorting to force management options that would further damage the force and its effectiveness in the field.

Not surprisingly, Secretary Gates has stated unequivocally that if this amendment were included in the authorization act, he would recommend the President veto it. I urge my colleagues to reject, again, the Webb amendment.

My friend from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, pointed out accurately--and he has played an incredible role--the terrific mistakes made in the conduct of this conflict under Secretary Rumsfeld and other leaders. This strategy, the Senator from Nebraska and I knew, was doomed to failure. As far back as 2003, we came back from Iraq and said: This strategy has to change or it is doomed to failure. As I have said, it was very much like watching a train wreck. Those mistakes and errors in the strategy have been well chronicled in a number of books that have been written, among them, and which I strongly recommend, ``Fiasco'' by Tom Ricks and ``Cobra II'' by General Trainor and Michael Gordon But we are where we are.

I would be glad, along with my friends from Nebraska and Virginia, to chronicle those many mistakes. Those mistakes were made with expressions of optimism which were, on their face, not comporting with the facts on the ground in Iraq: a few dead-enders, stuff happens, last throes, on and on. The fact is, the American people became frustrated, and they have become saddened and angry. Nothing is more moving than to know the families and loved ones of those who have sacrificed, nearly 4,000 in this conflict, not to mention the tens of thousands who have been gravely wounded. But we have a new strategy. We have success on the ground.

As I said earlier, all of us are frustrated by the fact that the Maliki government has not functioned with anywhere near the effectiveness we need. We also acknowledge that there are portions of the national police which are ``corrupt,'' which is a kind word, a kind description. But the facts were made very clear last week by the President of Iran, the President of a country that has dedicated itself to the extinction of Israel, a country that is developing nuclear weapons, a country that is exporting explosive devices of the most lethal kind into Iraq today that are killing young Americans. He said: When the United States of America leaves Iraq, we will fill the void. That is what this conflict is now about. It may not have been that when we started. The President of Iran has made Iranian intentions very clear. The Saudis will feel that the Sunnis have to be helped. Syria continues to try to destabilize the Government of Lebanon and continues to arm and equip Hezbollah. By the way, there is a standing United Nations Security Council resolution that calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah. Has anybody seen any effect of that lately? Jordan has 750,000 refugees in their small country.

The situation as regards Afghanistan, as far as Pakistan is concerned, is certainly murky at best, and perhaps we could see a nuclear-armed country, which Pakistan is, in the hands of people who may not be friendly to the United States or interested in controlling the Afghan-Pakistan border areas which are not under control now.

As Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post over the weekend, a precipitous withdrawal would have profound consequences. As GEN Jim Jones testified, on the results of his commission, his last words were, a precipitous withdrawal would cause harm to America's national security interests, not only in Iraq but in the area.

The reason I point this out is because the effect of the Webb amendment--and whether it is intended by the Senator from Virginia or not but it is interpreted by many, including others whom I have quoted--would be to force precipitous withdrawal before the situation on the ground warranted.

I hope we understand that America is facing a watershed situation. We have grave challenges in Iraq. I believe if we set a date for withdrawal or, through this backdoor method, force a date for withdrawal, we will see chaos and genocide in the region, and we will be back.

I fully acknowledge to my friends and colleagues that we have paid a very heavy price in American blood and treasure because of failures for nearly 4 years. I understand their frustration. I understand their anger. But I am also hearing from the men and women serving in Iraq as we speak. Always throughout this long ordeal, the most professional and best- equipped and best-trained and bravest military this Nation has ever been blessed with were doing their job. They were doing their job under the most arduous conditions of warfare that any American, Army and Marine Corps and military, has ever been engaged, ever.

But now in the last few months, we are hearing a different message from these brave people; that is, they believe they are succeeding. They believe they are succeeding. In Anbar Province, the marines are walking in downtown Ramadi, which used to be Fort Apache. Neighborhoods in Baghdad are safer. They are not safe, but they are safer. Al-Qaida is being rejected in many areas. I pointed out the difficulties in the other part of it, but I also believe, from my study of history, that when you have a condition of military security, it is very likely and much more possible that the commercial, social, and political process moves forward in a successful fashion. I keep saying over and over: We have not seen that with the Maliki government, and we have every right to see it. But I believe the conditions have been created, if they seize it, that we will also see political progress in that country.

I believe the people of Iraq, not wanting to be Kurds or Sunni or Shia but Iraqis, harbor the same hopes and dreams and aspirations to live in a free and open society where they can send their kids to school and live in conditions of peace and harmony. That can be achieved over a long period of time.

Let me finally say that success in Iraq is long and hard and difficult, but I also believe the options are far worse than to pursue what has been succeeding.

This amendment will probably define our role in Iraq as to how this whole conflict will come out. I question no one's patriotism. I question no one's devotion to this country. I am sure there are Members on the other side of this issue, supporting this amendment, who are more dedicated than I am, perhaps. But the fact is, this is a watershed amendment. We need to defeat it. We need to make sure these brave young men and women who are now serving and succeeding have more opportunity to succeed and come home with honor. We all want them home. We don't want to see the spectacle of another defeated military. Overstressed, overdeployed, weary, but not defeated--that is our military today. The Webb amendment could easily bring about their defeat.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his comments. I would like to point out that the Senator from Virginia says his amendment has a waiver associated with it, so, therefore, it should be acceptable to us. I would like to quote from Secretary Gates's letter to Senator Graham. He says:

Although the amendment language does provide the President

a waiver for ``operational emergencies''--

``Operational emergencies''--not just a waiver, but there has to be an operational emergency--

it is neither practical nor desirable for the President to

have to rely on waivers to manage the global demands on U.S.

military forces. Moreover, the amendment would serve to

advance the dangerous perception by regional adversaries that

the U.S. is tied down and overextended.

So I think we ought to understand what this waiver really means. Of course, Secretary Gates is a political appointee. That is the way the Government functions. But to somehow, therefore, question his judgment because he is a political appointee is inappropriate, I say to the Senator from Virginia.

GEN Brent Scowcroft, whom the Senator from Virginia referred to, said: The costs of staying are visible. The costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution.

Now, that is the view of one of the most respected men in America. He also was a political appointee at one time as the President's National Security Adviser. He believed very strongly we should not have gone to Iraq, and I would be glad someday, along with Senator Webb and Senator Hagel, to talk about all the reasons why we should or should not have. But the fact we are where we are today, in his view, is very clear.

Now, on the issue of constitutionality, it clearly violates the principles of separation of powers. Congress has no business in wartime passing a law telling the Department of Defense which of its fully trained troops it can and cannot use in carrying out combat operations.

As we all know, this dwell time provision, as I said, has been tried before. The President, when it was included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, said:

[T]he micro-management in this legislation is unacceptable

because it would create a series of requirements that do not

provide the flexibility needed to conduct the war.

This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to

direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that

infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the

Constitution, including as Commander in Chief of the Armed

Forces.

The Senator from Virginia referred to article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power ``to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.'' Well, clearly that applies to pay, equipment, end strength, basing, and most of the training, equipping, and organizing functions that are vested in the services under the Goldwater-Nichols Act. But the article I power cannot be employed to accomplish unconstitutional ends, and that would include restricting the President's authority as Commander in Chief in wartime to direct the movement of U.S. forces.

Justice Robert Jackson, who served as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Attorney General, said:

The President's responsibility as Commander in Chief

embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces

in their immediate movements and operations, designed to

protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United

States.

I submit that current policies regarding combat unit rotations, tour length, and dwell time that affect our brave men and women in uniform fall squarely under that authority.

In his letter, as I mentioned before, Secretary Gates addressed this constitutional question. He said:

The amendment would unreasonably burden the President's

exercise of his Constitutional authorities, including his

authority as Commander in Chief. In particular, the amendment

would hinder the President's ability to conduct diplomatic,

military, and intelligence activities and limit his ability

to move military forces as necessary to secure the national

security.

Let's consider other legislation--the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986-- which fundamentally reorganized the Department of Defense and reflected some serious thought about how wars ought to be conducted. The act says:

Unless otherwise directed by the President, the chain of

command to a unified or specified command runs--

from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and

from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the

combatant command.

I see no mention of Congress in that chain of command.

The Goldwater-Nichols Act also has a section titled ``Responsibilities of the Combatant Commanders'' that says: The commander of a combatant command is responsible to the President and to the Secretary of Defense for the performance of missions assigned to that command by the President or by the Secretary with the approval of the President. Again, no mention of Congress in that chain of command.

I want to clarify to my friend from Virginia, I have--again, I repeat, and I

am sure I will repeat several times in the conduct of this discussion-- I have no doubt that the intent of the Senator from Virginia is to relieve this terrible burden of service that is being laid upon a few Americans. He and I both know people who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan three and four times--an incredible level of service. The National Guard has never, ever that I know of in my study of history borne the burden they have today. These citizen soldiers have performed not only at the same level but sometimes at a higher level of our professional standing Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy. But the fact is, the amendment of the Senator from Virginia--I believe and am convinced from my study of the Constitution, my view of the role of the Commander in Chief, what is at stake in Iraq, as I pointed out--will have the effect of reversing what has been a successful strategy employed by General Petraeus, General Odierno, and the brave men and women. I have no doubt of the intention of the Senator from Virginia in this amendment, but I have great concerns and conviction that the effect of this amendment would have impacts that would lead to greater consequences and require, eventually, over time, because of chaos in the region, greater sacrifice of American blood and treasure.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding that Senator Graham, the senior Senator from South Carolina, is a member of the Air Force Reserve and the JAG Corps; is that correct?

I understand you just spent a couple of weeks in Iraq serving in active duty and in your capacity as an Air Force colonel?

And despite the mistake that was made in the promotion system, you did form impressions over there from the day-to-day interface with the men and women who are serving there?

I think it might be appropriate, given the Senator's recent probably longer stay than any Member of Congress has ever had in Iraq, maybe he can talk to us a bit on the record not only about where the troops' morale is, what they believe in, and about the issue that was the reason he went there, and that is this enormous challenge of the rule of law, and whether we are making progress in that area, and what he expects, particularly in the area of the prisoner situation.

Mr. President, at this point, I have to object, unless the Senator from Georgia will agree that if there is a person on the other side who wants to speak in opposition, we can go back and forth. If we can modify the request that a speaker in support of the amendment may be interjected into that lineup, if there is a speaker in support of the amendment, I will not object. Is that agreeable to the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. President, can I hear the unanimous consent request again, please?

Mr. President, while my friend from Virginia is on the floor--my other friend from Virginia--I apologize to him for misspeaking this morning about his sponsorship of any amendment. I know he has a number of proposals he may bring before the Senate in the course of this debate, and I apologize to him for assuming he hadn't had any of those ready at that particular time.

Again, I thank him for the enormous input he has made in this debate and his wisdom and knowledge, and his leaving will create a void around here. Voids are always filled, but I think it may exist for a long time because of the many years of leadership on national security issues he has provided to this body, the State of Virginia, and the Nation. I say to the Senator, please accept my apologies.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Virginia for his knowledge, his wisdom, and his in-depth analysis of the situation. All of us who know him are appreciative of the very difficult process he has gone through as he has attempted to balance the needs of the military, America's national security, and the frustration and sorrow and anger that is felt by many Americans over our failures in this war. I thank him for the consultation process he has gone through. I have never known the Senator from Virginia to arrive at a decision without a thorough and complete analysis of it. He has used the wisdom he has acquired since World War II, when he served as a brave marine.

Excuse me--sailor, and later in the Marine Corps. He went wrong--I mean he did very well by serving both in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps, and then, of course, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and as an outstanding chairman of the Armed Services Committee. So I thank him for his in-depth analysis, I thank him for his leadership and guidance to all of us and to all of our citizens, and for a very thoughtful and persuasive discussion.

As we move forward on this issue, no matter what happens with the Webb amendment, we will be faced with the situation in Iraq. I hope the situation improves and these debates can be eliminated over time. I am not sure they can. I hope and pray they can, but in the meantime we will rely on the judgment and guidance of our friend from Virginia.

I say to my friend, he is exactly right. He is exactly right. Among the many failures, as my friend from Virginia knows very well, is that at the onset of this conflict it was believed by the then Secretary of Defense and others in the administration, including the President of the United States, this was going to be quick, it was going to be easy, it was going to be over.

There were people such as the Senator from Virginia--and, I might add, and me--who said you have to have a bigger Army. You have to have a bigger Marine Corps. The Army and Marine Corps is one-third smaller than it was at the time of the first gulf war. We should have paid attention to our friend and comrade, General Powell, and the Powell doctrine, and we obviously should have understood the requirements in the postinitial combat phase, which I think would have relieved this terrific burden we have laid on the men and women in both the Active Duty and the Guard and Reserve. God bless them for being able to sustain it. It is a remarkable performance on their part.

That is my understanding, I would say to the Senator from Virginia, and I also say that is why I think we need to have a Sense- of-the-Senate resolution, to reflect the overall opinion of the Senate that we need to fix this situation. Obviously, the unintended consequences of putting it into law at this time are myriad. The Senator from Virginia has, in the most articulate fashion, described those. I agree with the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I wish to add one additional point, though, that I think is important. I also believe that it is unconstitutional for this body to dictate the tours of duty and the service of the men and women in the military and how that is conducted. I am absolutely convinced, from my reading of history and of the Constitution, that to enact such an amendment would be an encroachment on the authority and responsibility of the Commander in Chief which could have significant consequences in future conflicts, particularly if those conflicts at some point may be unpopular with the American people. So I have additional reasons, besides our desire to--the impracticability, as the Senator has so adequately pointed out.

I see my friend from Illinois is waiting.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will take a minute to say to my colleagues we have several speakers lined up, and if Senators would come over and speak and also call as to whether you wish to speak and how much time, because we, I think, are close to entering into an agreement on speakers and also a time agreement so we can set a time for the vote on the Webb amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Webb amendment, that a side-by-side alternative to the Webb amendment be considered, which is in keeping with the agreement--well, I withdraw my request because I will wait until Senator Levin comes so there is no misunderstanding, except to say we do intend, after the disposition of the Webb amendment, to propose a side-by-side amendment which then we, I hope, could act on quickly because it is basically the debate we have been having. There is also the habeas amendment pending, as I understand it, and negotiations I think are still going on with regard to that issue. I hope we could get that resolved, and then we will try to nail down the number of amendments so we can address the issue of Iraq and associated amendments so we can then move forward with the rest of the DOD authorization bill.

I will very soon have conversations with Senator Levin, but in the meantime, if there are those on either side who wish to speak on this amendment, please make their wishes known, and the length of their statement, so we can begin to put together a unanimous consent agreement, which would then allow for a vote on the Webb amendment. I say this after having had discussions with Senator Webb on the issue.

I wish to make one additional comment. Dr. Kissinger had a piece in the Washington Post on Sunday which I had printed in yesterday's Record. I also commend to my colleague an article by Frederick W. Kagan entitled ``A Web of Problems.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be recognized for 14 minutes and then followed by the Senator from Kentucky for 12 minutes; and then I see the Senator from Montana on the floor, so the Senator from Montana for 5 minutes, followed by the Senator from Connecticut--this is going back and forth on both sides--for 14 minutes. I hope by then we will have been able to have the speakers and their times together so we could set a limit on this debate when everybody is heard.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan, the chairman, will be recognized to point out that we will have a side-by-side amendment, which I will be prepared to introduce soon. We also wish to move forward with speakers so we can set a time for a vote on the Webb amendment, in keeping with the wishes of the respective leaders.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I mention to my friend, I think by 4:40 we would know for sure. That is when the meeting the principals are in now is over. But we fully anticipate that at 5:15 a vote would be agreed to.

If there are other Senators who want to speak between now and about 5:00, please come down and do so. But my understanding is that this agreement is, following the Webb amendment vote, there would be 10 minutes equally divided and a vote after that.

That would make the vote at 5:25. I have no objection.

Parliamentary inquiry: Is it necessary to call up amendment No. 2918 or is it in order according to the unanimous consent agreement?

At this time, I call up amendment No. 2918 to be in order according to the unanimous consent agreement propounded by the Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, I understand I have 2\1/2\ minutes; is that correct?

Madam President, I think we ought to understand what this amendment is all about. In the view of the Secretary of Defense, he says:

As drafted, the amendment would dramatically limit the

Nation's ability to respond to other national security needs

while we remain engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan.

He goes on to say:

The amendment would impose upon the President an

unacceptable choice between accelerating the rate of drawdown

significantly beyond what General Petraeus has recommended,

which he and other senior military commanders believe would

not be prudent, and would put at real risk the gains we have

made on the ground in Iraq over the past few months, or to

resort to force management options that would further damage

the force and its effectiveness in the field.

That is what this amendment is about. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President of the United States is deprived of the authority to decide when and where to send troops in a time of war. Nowhere. Nowhere in the history of this country have such restrictions been imposed or privileges assumed by the Congress of the United States. We have one Commander in Chief, and one only. To somehow assume that we would begin with Congress's 535 commanders in chief, I think, would reduce our ability to ever fight another war effectively.

Let me sum up by saying that clearly the message I am getting from the troops in the field is not that the war is lost, as the majority leader in the Senate stated last April. We are succeeding and we are winning. And with the enactment of this amendment, we will choose to lose. This is setting a formula for surrender, not for victory.

I am hearing from the troops in the field three words, three words: Let us win. They have sacrificed a great deal, as the majority leader described very dramatically. Now give them a chance to win. That is what they want. They do not want that sacrifice to be in vain.

This amendment would do exactly what the Secretary of Defense says, as well as other interested observers. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Allow this new strategy and for this great general, whom the American people had a great opportunity to see last week as he spoke to the Congress and the American people. Reject this amendment and let us win.

Madam President, I again wish to express my appreciation and respect for the author of the amendment that was just considered by the Senate. I appreciate the courtesy and the level of debate that was conducted. I also always appreciate very much his brave service to our Nation.

I hope I could convince my friend from Virginia that perhaps we could have a voice vote on this, because as we know, it is a sense-of-the- Senate amendment. I will not take all of my time except to say that all Senators share the concern for the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families, as a result of the operational demands of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This amendment expresses a sense of Congress--a sense of Congress, not a mandate--that consistent with wartime requirements, DOD should put into place force management policies that reflect the dwell time ratios in the Webb amendment.

The amendment is clear, however, that such dwell time policies cannot be implemented if to do so would prevent mission accomplishment or harm other

members of the force. That is why it includes a certification requirement that would have the Secretary of Defense assure Congress that such a policy would not result in extending deployments of units or members beyond their current scheduled rotation.

The amendment also includes a waiver provision that Senator Warner suggested. It wisely provides authority to the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirements of any existing dwell time policy and an attendant certification if the Secretary of Defense determines it is necessary to do so in the interest of national security.

I again want to thank Senator Warner, our distinguished former chairman and long-time Member of this body, who played such an important role in this whole debate and continues to.

I realize this debate on Iraq is far from over, that this is only one amendment. But I also appreciate the level of dialog, debate, and discussion on this very important issue.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will object. I say to my friend from Oregon, I understand this is the hate crimes bill. I appreciate his passion and commitment on this issue. There is no one more respected in the Senate who has had the situation of my distinguished friend from Oregon. But we are on the Defense bill. We have to move forward with the amendments. We have to get it done. We have both Iraq as well as the impending 1st of October date staring us in the face. At this time I object to the request by the Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, I reserve the right to object.

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

Madam President, I would like to repeat what my friend and distinguished chairman said: We need to get opening statements done. The debate has now begun on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. We are looking at the date of September 18, and we want to get this bill done as quickly as possible and to conference with the House so we can provide the much needed equipment, training, pay, and care for our veterans as well as our military personnel. I urge my colleagues, if they have any statements to make on this bill, that they come over and make them.

I also would like to point out, as my friend from Michigan has, that we will be working on the large number of amendments on the bill as well as the provisions on Iraq. The sooner we complete action on this legislation, the sooner we can get it to conference with the other body and to the President's desk for signature.

This is not the first time we have addressed this bill, and I hope it is the last for the National Defense Authorization Act, at least for fiscal year 2008. I again express my appreciation and admiration for the distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, who has not only worked closely with this side of the aisle but also has worked very hard to forge a bipartisan bill that received a unanimous vote from the committee

upon its reporting to the floor of the Senate. Obviously, we have a great debate here again on the issue of Iraq with the consideration of several amendments, so I hope we will be able to also dispose of those as quickly as possible.

As all of my colleagues know, we have received the much anticipated testimony of GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and the Senate now begins a debate of historic proportions. In my opinion, at stake is nothing less than the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and the security of all Americans for decades to come. The Senate faces a series of stark choices: whether to build on the success of the surge and fight for additional gains or whether to set a date for Americans to surrender in Iraq and thereby suffer the terrible consequences that will ensue. As we consider each of the Iraq-related amendments filed on this bill, let us understand the enormous consequences of decisions that are taken here.

Henry Kissinger framed the debate in a Washington Post article this weekend, saying:

American decisions in the next few months will affect the

confidence and morale of potential targets, potential allies,

and radical Jihadists around the globe. Above all, they will

define the U.S. capacity to contribute to a safer and better

world.

I ask unanimous consent to have the article by Dr. Kissinger from the Washington Post over the weekend printed in the Record at this time.

Madam President, let us proceed with this debate, keeping in mind that the underlying bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, contains many non-Iraq provisions which constitute good defense policy and which will strengthen the ability of our country to defend itself. That is why the committee voted unanimously to report the bill, which fully funds the President's $648 billion defense budget request, authorizes a 3.5-percent pay raise for all military personnel, increases Army and Marine end-strength, reforms the system that serves wounded veterans, and provides necessary measures to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse in defense procurement. It is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. I believe we need to send it to the President's desk.

While the Senate moved off the bill in July and on to other things and then went on to a month-long recess, America's soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen continued fighting bravely and tenaciously in Iraq in concert with their Iraqi counterparts. Some Senators undoubtedly welcomed the delay in considering the Defense bill, believing that General Petraeus would deliver to Congress a report filled only with defeat and despair. If this was their hope, they were sorely disappointed. As we all now know, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker reported what some of us argued before the bill was pulled 2 months ago: that the surge is working, that we are making progress toward our goals, and that success, while long, hard, and by no means certain, is possible. We are succeeding only after 4 years of failures, years which have exacted an enormous cost on our country and on the brave men and women who fight in Iraq on our behalf.

Some of us from the beginning warned against the Rumsfeld strategy of too few troops, insufficient resources, and a plan predicated on hope rather than on the difficult business of stabilization and counterinsurgency. We lost years to that strategy, years we cannot get back. In the process, the American people became saddened, frustrated, and angry. I, too, am heartsick at the terrible price we have paid for nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. But I also know America cannot simply end this effort in frustration and accept the terrible consequences of defeat in Iraq. We cannot choose to lose in Iraq. I believe we must give our commanders the time and support they have asked for to win this conflict.

Ralph Peters, the distinguished military strategist, summed it up best, noting that Congress's failure to support General Petraeus:

Would be a shame, since, after nearly 4 years of getting it

miserably wrong in Iraq, we are finally getting it right.

In 2 days of testimony and countless interviews, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker described how we are finally getting it right. We finally have in place a counterinsurgency strategy, one we should have been following from the beginning, which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not advance the tactics of our enemy. This new strategy, backed by a tactical surge in troops, is the only approach that has resulted in real security improvements in Iraq.

General Petraeus reported that the overall number of ``security incidents'' in Iraq has declined in 8 of the last 12 weeks and that sectarian violence has dropped substantially since the change in strategy. Civilian deaths nationwide are down by nearly half since December and have dropped by some 70 percent in Baghdad. Deaths resulting from sectarian violence have come down by 80 percent since December, and the number of car bombings and suicide attacks has declined in each of the past 5 months. Anyone who has traveled recently to Anbar or Diyala or Baghdad can see the improvements that have taken place over the past months. With violence down, commerce has risen, and the bottom-up efforts to forge counterterrorism alliances are bearing tangible fruit. This is not to argue that Baghdad or other areas have suddenly become safe--they have not--but such positive developments illustrate General Petraeus's contention that Americans and Iraqi forces have achieved substantial progress.

There are many challenges remaining, and the road ahead is long and tough. The Maliki government has not taken advantage of our efforts to enable reconciliation and is not functioning as it must. While violence has declined significantly, it remains high, and success is not certain. We can be sure, however, that should the Congress choose to lose by legislating a date for withdrawal, and thus surrender, or by mandating a change in mission that would undermine our efforts in Iraq, then we will fail for certain. Make no mistake, the consequences of America's defeat in Iraq will be terrible and long lasting.

There is in some corners a belief that we can simply turn the page in Iraq, come home, and move on to other things. This is dangerously wrong. If we surrender in Iraq, we will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. Two weeks ago, General Jim Jones testified before the Armed Services Committee and outlined what he believes to be the consequences of such a course: ``a precipitous departure which results in a failed state in Iraq,'' he said, ``will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists, jihadists, in the world, who will believe that they will have toppled the major power on Earth and that all else is possible. And I think it will not only make us less safe; it will make our friends and allies less safe. And the struggle will continue. It will simply be done in different and in other areas.''

Some Senators would like to withdraw our troops from Iraq so we can get back to fighting what they believe to be the real war on terror. This, too, is inaccurate. Iraq has become the central front in the global war on terror, and failure there would turn Iraq into a terrorist sanctuary, in the heart of the Middle East, next door to Iran, the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism. If we fail in Iraq, we will concede territory to jihadists to plan attacks against America and our friends and allies. The region could easily descend into chaos, wider war, and genocide, and we should have no doubt about who will take advantage.

The Iranian President has stated his intentions bluntly. This is the same fellow who announced his dedication and his nation's dedication to the extinction of the state of Israel the same President of the country that is exporting lethal explosive devices of the most lethal and dangerous kind into Iraq, killing American service men and women. This President said this:

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

course, we are prepared to fill the gap.

We cannot allow an Iranian dominated Middle East to take shape in the context of wider war and terrorist safehavens. General Jones is just one of many distinguished national security experts who warn against the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. As Brent Scowcroft said, ``The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed . . . If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution.'' Natan Sharansky has, written that a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces ``could lead to a bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison.'' And Henry Kissinger warns that, ``An abrupt withdrawal from Iraq would not end the war; it would only redirect it.''

The proponents of withdrawal counter that none of these terrible consequences would unfold should any of their various proposals become law. On the contrary, they argue, U.S. forces could, when not engaged in training the Iraqi forces, engage in targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that such a narrow approach to the complex Iraqi security environment will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is a recipe for failure. How can they be so sure? It's simple--this focus on training and counterterrorism constitutes the very strategy that so plainly failed for the first four years of this war. To return to such an unsuccessful approach is truly ``staying the course,'' and it is a course that will inevitably lead to our defeat and to catastrophic

consequences for Iraq, the region, and the security of the United States.

General Petraeus and his commanders have embraced a new strategy, one that can, over time, lead to success in Iraq. They are fighting smarter and better, and in a way that can give Iraqis the security and opportunity to make decisions necessary to save their country from the abyss of genocide and a permanent and spreading war, and in a way that will safeguard fundamental American interests. They ask just two things of us: the time to continue this strategy and the support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both, and I will fight to ensure that they do.

As we engage in this debate, I hope that each of us will recall our most solemn allegiance, which is not to party or politics but to country. I have heard on this floor the claim that our efforts in Iraq somehow constitute ``Bush's war'' or the ``Republican war.'' Nothing could be farther from the truth. Presidents do not lose wars. Political parties do not lose wars. Nations lose wars and suffer the consequences, or prevail and enjoy the blessings of their success.

All of us want our troops to come home, and to come home as soon as possible. But we should want our soldiers to return to us with honor, the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid with the ultimate sacrifice. We have many responsibilities to the people who elected us, but one responsibility outweighs all the others, and that is to protect this great and good Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.

This is a serious debate and one we engage at a time of national peril. The Americans who make the greatest sacrifices have earned the right to insist that we do our duty, as best we can and remember to whom and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the American people and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded.

Madam President, will the distinguished chairman yield for a question?

Madam President, it is my understanding in my conversations with the chairman, we are moving forward in narrowing down amendments so we have an additional managers' package so we have a manageable number of amendments that need to be debated and voted on, and we will try to get time agreements on those, as well as the Iraqi amendments.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind remarks. All things considered, I would rather the situation be reversed, but I certainly do appreciate the opportunity.

One of the nice things about this body is that over a 20-year period, the Senator from Michigan and I have had the honor of working together on behalf of this Nation's defense on this very important committee, the Armed Services Committee. One of the previous chairman's statues presides in the office named after him--the office in which we both work and where we spend our time on the committee. I believe given our past history, I say to the chairman, that it is very possible we could dispose of this bill by the end of the week. One of the reasons why the chairman and I both made the argument to our colleagues to get it done is because we have to go to conference with the House, the other body, which has a number of different provisions that have to be reconciled. Then we have to get it to the President's desk, and October 1 is the beginning of a new fiscal year. So I hope our colleagues all appreciate the urgency.

One of the provisions of this legislation is the Wounded Warriors. We were all appalled at the conditions at Walter Reed. That is why we in the committee, with some guidance from a distinguished commission--a lot of guidance from a distinguished commission, headed by Senator Dole and former Secretary Shalala. These are very important issues for the medical care of the men and women who are serving. It will not happen unless we get this legislation passed. So we are kind of asking for a higher calling here to understand the necessity to get this bill to the President's desk before the October 1.

Of course, we can have a continuing resolution. We have done that, not on the DOD bill, as I recall. I don't know if the chairman recalls it. That, obviously, does not do what these thousands of hours of hard work on our part and on the part of the military leaders and the members of staff do.

It is my fine hope, I say to the chairman, that we are able to finish this bill this week with the cooperation of all involved.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the bill before us is a budget buster. It is over $3 billion above the President's budget request and contains numerous earmarked projects, worth over $2 billion. It should be soundly rejected.

Funding for transportation infrastructure and transportation safety is of enormous importance and I know all of us support doing what we can to improve our Nation's transportation system, from our roads and bridges to our air service. The tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota in August was a harsh reminder of just how critical our responsibilities are to balance competing transportation funding needs. But we simply must do so in a fiscally responsible manner. The Senate's action Monday to increase the obligation limitation for the highway trust fund by $1 billion is not the answer nor was it responsible. It might have been politically expedient, but it is not the answer.

We cannot afford to simply spend more and more of taxpayers' hard- earned dollars without consequences. It is time for Congress to start making choices among competing priorities, just as American families do each month with their family budgets. In this bill, we are not underfunding transportation; we are misdirecting infrastructure funding to earmarked projects that are questionable and certainly not urgently needed.

According to the Reason Foundation's 16th Annual Highway Performance Report, 24 percent of our Nation's bridges were deficient or obsolete in 2005. Minnesota actually ranked 5th best in the Nation, yet we watched with horror as one of the State's major thoroughfares crumbled from disrepair. The Wall Street Journal reported on August 22, 2007, that a week before the bridge collapse, a Congressman from Minnesota inserted over $10 million in earmarks for rail transit, bike trails and the ``Kids Peace Mesabi Academy,'' but not a penny for bridge or infrastructure repair.

In addition to our aging bridges, our Interstate Highway System is over 50 years old and not equipped to handle today's traffic levels. So what has Congress done in response to this reality? We have increased earmarking of our highway program funding by a staggering level: The 1982 highway bill included 10 demonstration projects totaling $386 million; the 1987 highway bill included 152 demonstration projects totaling $1.4 billion; the 1991 highway bill included 538 location- specific projects totaling $6.1 billion; the 1998 highway bill included 1,850 earmarked projects totaling $9.3 billion; and the 2005 highway bill included over 5,634 earmarked projects totaling $21.6 billion.

So instead of allowing states the ability to allocate their highway dollars to their most pressing needs, like deficient bridges, we are funding a significantly higher level of bike paths and highway beautification projects and sidewalk improvements. When will we learn? When will we learn that this is not what the American people want or deserve from their elected representatives. How many more infrastructure tragedies will occur before we change our earmarking ways?

Instead of raising the gas taxes, as some Members of Congress have suggested, for the millions of Americans who are already paying more for gas than ever before, the Federal and State governments must prioritize transportation spending to focus on projects with the most need rather than building ``bridges to nowhere.'' If Congress fails to recover from its addiction to earmarks, then crumbling bridges, congested highways, and crowded airports will continue much to the determent of all Americans.

Congress recently passed an ethics reform bill that requires the disclosure of the authorship of earmarks. Ninety-one Members of this body requested transportation earmarks in this appropriations bill. For example, this bill contains $4 million for a bridge in Arkansas that does not appear in the Arkansas State transportation improvement plan, thereby questioning its necessity. The bill also includes almost $2 million for a study on the effects of dust suppressant chemicals on Federal highways, $2 million above the administration's request for volcano monitoring in Alaska, and $2 million to prevent the frequent U turns at the gates of the Los Alamos labs in New Mexico.

Of course, the bill includes a wide range of transportation earmarks. The bill also contains $8 million for airport improvements to Cape Cod and Nantucket, $2.5 million for improvements at the Niagara Falls International Airport, and $1.5 million for improvements at the airport in Palm Springs, CA. No doubt these popular tourist destinations could have helped to pay for these improvements themselves rather then requiring all taxpayers to subsidize such marvelous destinations that many taxpayers may never be able to afford to visit.

The bill also provides $3.5 million to construct an airport in Akutan, AK--population 767--when an alternative airport is less than 55 miles away and $1 million for airport improvements at Lewis University, IL, for its 1,000 students. There are also earmarks for ferry service, such as $1 million for Nassau County, NY, which is the sixth richest county in the Nation. Again, taxpayers nationwide must support and sustain these projects despite their use by a few.

The underlying bill provides funding for the Department of Transportation's 1-year pilot program that would allow a maximum of 100 Mexican trucks to enter and travel to a single destination in the United States this year. This pilot program is the result of planning and preparation over the past 14 years. NAFTA, passed by Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, mandated the opening of our southern border to Mexican trucking operations. Congress set forth stringent preconditions for opening the border in section 350 of the fiscal year 2002 transportation appropriations bill, and DOT complied with all 22 of those requirements. The Inspector General has

reported five times that the Department has substantially met those safety requirements. It is now time to allow these two countries to move forward with this 1-year pilot program that will have numerous economic benefits for the two nations. Unfortunately, the Senate has voted 74 to 24 to prevent the pilot from going forward. As such, we continue to fall short of abiding by the obligations we committed to when we approved NAFTA.

In addition to my concerns with the transportation title, this bill provides more than $3 billion above the President's budget request for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Like previous years, the accompanying report contains an enormous number of earmarks in the Economic Development Initiative and neighborhood initiative accounts to the tune of more than 300 earmarks totaling nearly $300 million.

Again, I would like to express my disappointment that Senate leadership has brought to the floor a bill that is $3 billion over the administration's request containing hundreds of earmarks. Rightly, the administration has announced that the President will veto this bill unless its price tag is reduced. That is the correct action.

During my recent travels around the Nation, I hear again and again from citizens who are fed up with pork barrel spending and yet, Congress fails to listen. It is a shame, and I can only hope that the American people will join me in expressing their displeasure with this bill.

Mr. President, I support amendment No. 2708 that would prevent contributions to organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. I was unable to be in attendance for this vote. However, if I had been present, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. Similarly, I support amendment No. 2707 that would prohibit funding of organizations that support coercive abortion. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of this amendment.

I oppose amendment No. 2719 that would rescind the ``Mexico City Policy'' in its entirety, and, had I been present, I would have voted against it.

Life is the most important gift each of us is given, and I believe that abortion unfairly takes the innocent life of an unborn child who deserves protection, morally and legally. For this reason, I oppose abortion, except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is endangered.

The ``Mexico City Policy'' denies U.S. population assistance funds to private organizations that campaign to legalize abortion in foreign countries, or which otherwise promote abortion as a method of family planning. I believe that we must be committed to protecting the life of unborn children, and I do not support the expenditure of U.S. taxpayer dollars for the purposes of funding abortions, whether inside or outside the United States. While I understand the need for family planning services, particularly in developing countries, and support efforts to meet these needs, I do not believe that abortion is an appropriate form of birth control. For this reason, I oppose the allocation of taxpayer money to organizations that promote and provide abortion services.

Madam President, over the last 20 years, I have found myself in a lonely fight against earmarks and porkbarrel spending year after year. I have come to the floor and read list after list of the ridiculous items we are spending money on, hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change.

I was encouraged in January, when this body passed by 96 to 2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful earmark reform. I thought at last we would finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, the victory was short-lived.

One of my happier days, I will admit, was when Dr. Coburn was elected to the Senate in 2004. There is no better advocate of earmark reform; no one more consistent in standing firm to fight the worthy fight against wasteful spending, and I am proud to call him my friend.

I would like to commend my friend, Senator DeMint, and Senator Graham, Senator Cornyn, and others for joining our effort. Sadly, I say to my friends, that given the very watered-down earmark provisions contained in the measure brought to us by the majority, our good fight clearly will have to continue.

Not only does this bill do far too little to rein in wasteful spending, it has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we passed overwhelming in January. It provides little more than lip service, unless, of course, you happen to be a committee chairman of the majority leader.

Under this majority-written bill, with no input from the Republicans, this bill will, unless you hold one of the top positions, you will now wield even more power, even more power with your porkbarrel pen.

Let me be clear. The ethics and lobbying reform bill has some good provisions which I strongly support: A ban on gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists or groups, although, if you want to get a free meal, count it as a campaign contribution. But, anyway, increased disclosure is welcome reform.

But the bill before us fixes only part of the problem and does not go to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem that has bred the corruption is the earmark process. We all know that as my friend, Dr. Coburn, has said from time to time, it is the gateway drug to corruption--it is the gateway drug to corruption. I do not throw around the word ``corruption'' lightly. But there

are former Members of Congress in jail. There are investigations going on right now, and you can trace it all back to the influence of money which has corrupted a process which then allows money, our tax dollars, to be given to special interests or even accrue to the benefit of the author of the earmarks.

We come to the floor a lot and talk about a lot of the earmarking. Some of them are fun to talk about, but they make you sad: $225,000 for a historic wagon museum in Utah; $1 million for a DNA study of bears in Montana; $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

You notice all these earmarks are geographically designated so there will be no mistake that that money might go someplace else other than where it had been intended by the appropriator.

One of my favorites is the $37 million over 4 years to the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board to promote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries. So how does this board spend the money so generously? I have a picture I will not show. Well, they spent $500,000 of your tax dollars to paint a giant salmon on the side of an Alaska Airlines 747, and nicknamed it the ``Salmon Forty Salmon.''

So the fact is, we are not going at the heart of the problem. Let me quote from yesterday's Wall Street Journal that says it even better than I can:

Our favorite switcheroo: Under the previous Senate reform,

the Senate parliamentarian would have determined whether a

bill complied with earmark disclosure rules. Under Mr. Reid's

new version, the current majority leader, that is, Mr. Reid

himself, will decide if a bill is in compliance. When was the

last time a Majority Party Leader declared one of his own

bills out of order?

I have only been here 20 years, but I have never seen it. I do not think you are going to see it in the future. So while under this new version of the bill earmarks should be disclosed in theory, the fact remains that only the committee chair or the majority leader or his designee can police it.

If they say all the earmarks are identified, we take it as gospel. Our only option is to appeal the ruling of the chair that a certification was made. Of course, that is business as usual, requiring 60 votes.

The new version does retain the requirement that bills and conference reports be available 48 hours before a vote, but the searchable database is no longer a requirement when it comes to conference reports; conference reports, where we have seen inserted some of the most egregious porkbarrel projects in this system as it exists today.

Of course, conveniently the bill was modified between its release Monday morning and another version Monday afternoon. It was a modification to the benefit of the business-as-usual crowd. It would now require a 60-vote threshold to appeal the ruling of the chair, compared to a mere majority vote under the version released a few hours earlier.

Let's be clear. Sixty Members are not going to overrule the majority leader. Fact. Business as usual. Business as usual.

I am a bit saddened, too, because there was an opportunity here. There is enough outrage and anger out there amongst the American people that they are demanding reform. They are not demanding an increase from 1 year to 2 years for disclosure; they are not demanding about meals, they are demanding we fix the earmark process which has led to corruption. We have taken a pass. I regret it very much.

I predict to you now the earmarking and porkbarrel spending will creep back into the process sooner rather than later, and we will not regain the confidence of the American people.

I wish to thank again my colleagues, both Senators from South Carolina, the Senator from Oklahoma, and others who have fought sometimes a lonely fight to try to clean up this mess.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is debating the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. This is a vital safety net program that offers health care coverage to one of our most vulnerable populations, low-income children. I support a timely, fiscally responsible reauthorization of this program.

The SCHIP program has served a critical purpose for many years. In 1997, Congress created SCHIP to come to the aid of the millions of children who were going without health insurance because their families were stuck between earning too much money to qualify for Medicaid and not having enough money to purchase private health care coverage. I was pleased to join many of my colleagues in supporting its establishment. Thanks to this program, low-income children have been able to count on a safety net program that can provide them with health care coverage that they might otherwise go without.

I strongly support the central purpose of SCHIP and believe that children of low-income families should have health insurance coverage. In some ways, this program has been a great success, as we have been able to drop the rate of uninsured children by nearly 25 percent from 1996 to 2005 and SCHIP covered about 6.6 million children last year. At the same time, however, I am greatly concerned that the program has expanded beyond what Congress first intended. In some cases, SCHIP coverage has been extended to middle-income children and to certain adult populations. I don't believe that was the intention of Congress when we created this program. This has complicated SCHIP reauthorization, and I believe that if we allow SCHIP to grow beyond its original purpose, SCHIP spending will grow exponentially and jeopardize its future success.

Several options have been proposed to reauthorize the SCHIP program. One, the CHIP Reauthorization Act, which was reported by the Finance Committee, would greatly expand SCHIP beyond its original framework, lead to an explosion in new spending, and reduce private health coverage in our country. The other, the Kids First Act, which I support, would keep SCHIP's focus on providing low-income children with health insurance in a fiscally responsible manner.

I am concerned over the direction that the CHIP Reauthorization Act would take SCHIP and the precedent it would set for future authorization bills. The current SCHIP baseline is currently $25 billion; however, under the Finance Committee's proposal, spending would explode by an additional $35 billion and will end up costing $60 billion over 5 years. Not only that, according to CBO, at the end of 5 years, in order to comply with pay-go rules, this bill reduces the SCHIP allotment in the fifth year 2013 from $8.4 billion to $600 million. If there is anyone who seriously believes Congress will cut SCHIP funding by $8 billion in 1 year and cause millions who would then rely on SCHIP to lose coverage, I have got some beachfront property in Yuma, AZ, that I am willing to sell.

The CBO report also points out that if the costs of the program continue to grow according to enrollment projections, the total cost of the program over the fiscal year 2008-2017 period would be $112 billion. Even the massive tobacco tax increase included in the bill, which would raise about $71 billion from fiscal year 2008-2017, can't cover that cost. I am not sure where the extra money will come from to cover the cost of the bill, and it is unfair that we leave this for a future Congress to figure out how to cover our overspending. In other words, let's put a halt to business as usual.

The CHIP bill also represents a change in the mission of SCHIP by further eroding private health coverage of children. With expanded eligibility for SCHIP, we are likely to see families who already have private coverage drop that coverage and opt for a Government-run, Government-subsidized program. CBO estimates that, among newly eligible populations covered under this bill, each additionally enrolled individual in SCHIP will be matched by one individual leaving private coverage. We will be spending billions and billions of dollars providing coverage for children who already have coverage, and I believe this is a dangerous step toward Government-run health care insurance.

Instead, Congress should remember the central mission of SCHIP and focus the program reauthorization on providing low-income children with health insurance coverage if they don't otherwise have it. Several of my colleagues offered the Kids First Act as a substitute amendment to the CHIP bill. It would reauthorize SCHIP, provide an increase in funding, and avoid a costly regressive tax increase. This bill would ensure that SCHIP mission remains covering low-income children and will focus efforts on enrolling children who are already eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but are not currently enrolled. It also recognizes that millions of children receive private health coverage and would improve current laws that allow States to offer premium assistance for coverage through private plans. Additionally, the Kids First Act also includes small business health plan reforms. Unfortunately, the Kids First Act failed after it was offered as an amendment during debate earlier this week.

At this time, I cannot support the CHIP Reauthorization Act. While I applaud the sponsors efforts to reauthorize SCHIP, I believe that bill differs drastically from the original intention of the SCHIP law and is fiscally irresponsible. I support the ideas contained in the alternative bill, the Kids First Act, which I believe would keep SCHIP focused on providing health insurance coverage to low-income children and would do so without dramatic increases in Federal spending or higher taxes on Americans.

Mr. President, today the Senate adopted, by unanimous consent, legislation that will make a significant difference in the lives of America's wounded warriors and veterans. I

applaud the passage of the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act and the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for the men and women of the U.S. military.

This legislation bridges the gap in health care coverage for the severely wounded, and ensures their access to the broadest possible range of health care services. It authorizes additional care and support for families who are caring for the wounded. The bill increases traumatic brain injury care for veterans, and access to mental health evaluations. It requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to develop and implement new policy to better manage the care and transition of our wounded soldiers. It also empowers a special board to review disability ratings of 20 percent or less, and to restore to wounded soldiers, if appropriate, a higher disability rating or retired status. And, it authorizes additional funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The disability evaluation systems of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs are out of date and in need of reform. This legislation advances that reform by requiring the immediate initiation of pilot projects to fundamentally change and streamline those antiquated systems. The bill also improves benefits related to administrative separation from the military due to injury, increasing severance pay and eliminating the requirement that severance pay be deducted from VA disability compensation for injuries incurred in a combat zone.

The legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to inspect and improve medical treatment and residential facilities, and to study the accelerated construction of new facilities at the National Military Medical Center at Bethesda, MD.

This legislation is an important step toward restoring trust for America's wounded soldiers and veterans. The Senate can be proud that it has put the needs of wounded warriors and our selfless service men and women ahead of partisanship, jurisdictional boundaries and disagreements over policy. We are now ready to move foward to conference with the House of Representatives and make overdue improvements for our soldiers, their families, and our veterans.

While I am pleased we have been able to take this action today, very critical improvements to defense policy and programs remain in the unfinished work on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008, which the Democratic Senate leadership pulled from the Senate floor last week because of policy disagreements on Iraq.

Failure to pass the Defense authorization bill will curtail many needed initiatives to support our military personnel and their families and to continue the fight on the global war on terror. Our military forces deployed throughout the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan, need the resources, training, and equipment that this bill would provide. Examples of the important authorities that are being held hostage to the contentious debate on policy in Iraq include: increasing in end-strength for the Army and Marine Corps; providing combat-related special compensation to serve members who are; medically retired because of a combat-related disability; paying over 25 special pays and bonuses designed to improve military recruiting and retention; improving military equipment needed to protect deploying forces, including $4.0 billion for mine-resistant vehicles known as MRAPs; updating Army combat systems and additional funding for armor and aviation survivability equipment; building five warships and funding for Virginia class submarines; increasing the number of Department of Defense and Department of Energy programs to help reduce the threat of nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union falling into the hands of terrorists; encouraging more focused competition for the billions of dollars that the Department of Defense spends on contract services; and providing critical authorities to combatant commanders to address security priorities and support allies, coalition partners, and others in the war on terror.

I call on the Senate leadership to resume consideration of the Defense authorization bill at the earliest possible time, so that these and many other critical pieces of the legislation will become law for the benefit of our troops. Swift passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008, coupled with support for our wounded warriors and hard-working troops together represent the full measure of support for our military forces that they need, and that they unquestionably deserve.