Floor Statements

I object. My understanding is that at 11 a.m., we were

supposed to go to the bill. We are now, at 11:15, going to go to the bill, and then we want the regular procedure as we consider legislation, which would be whoever has the right of recognition and any unanimous consent agreements.

So I object to the second unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would ask Senator Levin, for the benefit of all, what our plans for the day are and what we can expect. I understand that the Senate intends to stay in throughout the evening and debate this issue. I will not object, but I reserve the right to object. Perhaps the Senator from Michigan would illuminate me and the other Members as to what we can expect throughout the day and the evening.

We will be debating the Reed-Levin amendment throughout the day?

Mr. President, I do not object, but I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Michigan about our plans for the day. For example, I understand there is a Cornyn amendment which may be voted on as well?

If I could ask my colleague further, I understand we also have well over 100 pending amendments on the bill as well. I would hope that at some point, Senator Levin and I can sit down and maybe start sorting through those if we have any hope whatsoever of completing this bill.

I would remind all of my colleagues that this body has passed--and has been signed into law--a Defense authorization bill for the last 45 years. There are aspects of this bill, as the Senator well knows as the distinguished chairman, that we worked very hard on, such as pay raises and other authorizations for much needed equipment, training, et cetera. I would hope the Senator from Michigan and I can start working on those aspects of the bill, if we have any hopes of passing an authorization bill this year.

I thank Senator Levin. As I understand it, we will be debating the amendment of the chairman and the Senator from Rhode Island throughout the day and through tonight, and perhaps a cloture vote sometime tomorrow. Is that your understanding?

What is the parliamentary procedure, I would ask?

I thank Senator Levin.

This is the second week, as we know, we are on this bill. We have not gotten to many of the amendments that have anything to do with other aspects of defending this Nation besides the issue of Iraq. I look forward to working with him as we can try to not break a 45-year custom here that we provide the much needed authorization for the men and women in our defense establishment and provide for our Nation's security, which I think we all agree is our highest priority.

So, if I may continue the colloquy for just one moment, I know that there are--now we will be beginning, and I will give a statement after the chairman, if it is his desire, and then we will have speakers coming all day long on either side of this issue. I know many want to speak, and I hope they will be prepared to do so.

Finally, I thank Senator Levin for all the great work we have been able to do together and the wounded warrior legislation, which Senator Levin, under his leadership, we have now adopted as part of the bill.

There is another compelling argument to complete the bill. If we are going to take care of our wounded veterans and we are going to take care of the men and women who have served, I think it is a compelling argument that we get this legislation passed.

Finally, we have been back and forth on this issue. I do not like to get into the process and go back and forth. But 60 votes was not invented on this side, nor was it invented on the other side. The 60- vote procedure has been employed by the minority in recent years--in my view, all too often. But the fact is, to somehow say it was invented here on this side of the aisle obviously is not the case. There were many times, when the Democratic Party was in the minority in this body, where I saw 60 votes invoked, the procedure invoked, because it was felt, appropriately, because that is the way the Senate works, as the criteria for moving forward because of the urgency or the importance of the pending legislation.

So what is missing here, I would say to my friend from Michigan--and I think he agrees with me--is what we have seen is the erosion, over the past 20 years I have been here, of an ability to sit down and discuss and agree and move forward. That is what is the missing ingredient here, and it has been missing for some years.

I regret it. I may be a little optimistic, but I think if it were only between the Senator from Michigan and me, we could dispose of most of these issues rather readily and establish a procedure for moving forward. We are now at the point--let's have some straight talk--that this entire bill is in jeopardy because of the imbroglio of the war in Iraq being added to an authorization bill which was not intended to be a national security piece of legislation. It was intended to be a bill to authorize the necessary funding, training, and equipping of the men and women in the military, and care for our wounded veterans has been added. I regret the situation as it is, but that is the way it is. We will spend today debating this issue and discussing it. I hope at some point we will realize the war is going to be going on. This bill, if it is passed with the Reed-Levin amendment on it, would be vetoed by the President. That would be a bad thing to happen. The war will be discussed in September again--we all know that--when General Petraeus is ready to report to the Senate. At some point I would hope we could move forward on the authorization bill and do the things that are necessary to help equip and train and ready the men and women serving in the military and preserving our national security.

Again, I appreciate the efforts the Senator from Michigan, distinguished chairman of the committee, is making in this direction.

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the chairman and the Senator from Rhode Island. Let's be very clear what this amendment would do. It would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The debate that has taken place on this floor for some months now comes down to a simple choice. The sponsors of this amendment would have us legislate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment, leaving in place only forces authorized to carry out specific, narrow missions. That is one choice, to force an end to the war in Iraq and accept thereby all the terrible consequences that follow. The other is to defeat this amendment, to give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support they have requested to carry out their mission, to allow them to safeguard vital American interests and an Iraqi population at risk of genocide. That is the choice.

Though politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one direction, to take the easy course, we, as elected leaders, have a greater responsibility. A measure of courage is required, not the great courage exhibited by the brave men and women fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a smaller measure, the courage necessary to put our country's interests before every personal or political consideration.

I wish to spend a few moments reviewing the state of affairs in Iraq today. The final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy arrived several weeks ago. From what I saw and heard on my recent trips and from briefings and reports since then, I believe our military, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, is making progress in a number of areas. The areas where they are operating have

not suddenly become safe, but they do illustrate the progress that our military has achieved under General Petraeus's new strategy. The most dramatic advances have been made in Anbar Province, a region that last year was widely believed to be lost to al-Qaida. After an offensive by U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaned al-Qaida fighters off of Ramadi and other areas of western Anbar Province, tribal sheikhs broke formally with the terrorists and joined the coalition side.

Ramadi, which just months ago stood as Iraq's most dangerous city, is now one of its safest. In February, attacks in Ramadi averaged between 30 and 35. Now many days see no attacks at all--no gunfire, no IEDs, and no suicide bombings.

In Fallujah, Iraqi police have established numerous stations and have divided the city into gated districts, leading to a decline in violence. Local intelligence tips have proliferated in the province. Thousands of men are signing up for the police and the army, and the locals are taking the fight to al-Qaida. U.S. commanders in Anbar attest that all 18 major tribes in the province are now on board with the security plan. They expect that a year from now, the Iraqi Army and police could have total control of security in Ramadi. At that point, they project, we could safely draw down American forces in the area.

The Anbar model is one our military is attempting to replicate in other parts of Iraq with some real successes. A brigade of the 10th Mountain Division is operating in areas south of Baghdad, the belts around the capital which have been havens for al-Qaida and other insurgents. All soldiers in I brigades are living forward and commanders report that local sheikhs are increasingly siding with the coalition against al-Qaida, the main enemy in that area of operations.

Southeast of Baghdad the military is targeting al-Qaida in safe havens they maintain along the Tigris River, and MG Rick Lynch, commander of operations there, recently reported that attacks on civilians in his area of operations were down 20 percent since April and civilian deaths have declined by 55 percent. These and other efforts are part of Operation Phantom Thunder, a military operation intended to stop insurgents present in the Baghdad belts from originating attacks in the capital itself.

In Baghdad, the military, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, continues to establish joint security stations and deploy throughout the city in order to get violence under control. These efforts have produced positive results. Sectarian violence has fallen since January. The total number of car bombings and suicide attacks declined in May and June, and the number of locals coming forward with intelligence tips has risen. Make no mistake: Violence in Baghdad remains at unacceptably high levels. Suicide bombers and other threats pose formidable challenges, and other difficulties abound. Nevertheless, there appears to be overall movement in the right direction.

North of Baghdad, Iraqi and American troops have surged into Diyala Province and are fighting to deny al-Qaida sanctuary in the city of Baquba. For the first time since the war began, Americans showed up in force and did not quickly withdraw from the area. In response, locals have formed a new alliance with the coalition to counter al-Qaida. Diyala, which was the center of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Islamic caliphate finally has a chance to turn aside the forces of extremism.

I offer these observations not in order to present a rosy scenario of the challenges we continue to face in Iraq. As the horrific bombing in Salah ad-Din Province illustrates so graphically, the threats to Iraqi stability have not gone away, nor are they likely to go away in the near future. Our brave men and women in Iraq will continue to face great challenges. What I do believe, however, is that while the mission to bring a degree of security to Iraq and Baghdad and its environs in particular, in order to establish the necessary precondition for political and economic process, is still in its early stages, the progress our military has made should encourage all of us.

It is also clear that the overall strategy General Petraeus has put into place, a traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes protecting the population and gets our troops off of bases and into the areas they are trying to protect, is the correct one.

Some of my colleagues argue we should return troops to forward operating bases and confine their activities to training in targeted counterterrorism operations. That is precisely what we did for 3\1/2\ years, which I, time after time, said was doomed to failure. The situation in Iraq only got worse. I am, frankly, surprised that my colleagues would advocate a return to the failed Rumsfeld-Casey strategy. No one can be certain whether this new strategy, which remains in the early stages, can bring about ever greater stability. We can be sure, however, that should the Senate seek to legislate an end to the strategy as it is just commencing, then we will fail for certain.

Now that the military effort in Iraq is showing some signs of progress, space is opening for political progress. Yet rather than seizing the opportunity, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not functioning as it must. We see little evidence of reconciliation, and none of the 18 benchmarks has yet been met. Progress is not enough. We need to see results. Today. I am sorry to report the results are not there. The Iraqi Government can function. The question is whether it will. If there is to be hope of a sustainable end to the violence that so plagues that country, Iraqi political leaders must seize this opportunity. It will not come around again.

To encourage political progress, I believe we can find wisdom in several suggestions put forward recently by Henry Kissinger. An intensified negotiation among the Iraqi parties could limit violence, promote reconciliation, and put the political system on a more stable footing. At the same time we should promote a dialog between the Iraqi Government and its Sunni Arab neighbors, specifically Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, in order to build broader international acceptance for the Iraqi central Government in exchange for that Government meeting specific obligations with respect to the protection and political participation of the Sunni minority. These countries should cease their efforts to handpick new Iraqi leaders and instead contribute to stabilizing Iraq, an effort that would directly serve their national interests.

Finally, we should begin a broader effort to establish a basis for aid and even peacekeeping efforts by the international community key to political progress in Iraq. In taking such steps, we must recognize that no lasting political settlement can grow out of a U.S. withdrawal. On the contrary, a withdrawal must grow out of a political solution, a solution made possible by the imposition of security by coalition and Iraqi forces.

Secretary Kissinger is absolutely correct when he states ``precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster'' and one that ``would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia,'' produce greater violence among Iraqi factions, and embolden radical Islamists around the world.

Let us keep in the front of our minds the likely consequences of premature withdrawal from Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that should the withdrawal amendment we are currently debating 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, and more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement.

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. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking about not winning in Iraq but is, rather, debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al- Qaida's deputy chief, said the United States is merely delaying our inevitable defeat in Iraq and that the Mujahedin of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and Jihad are advancing with steady steps toward victory. He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al-Qaida.

General Petraeus has called al-Qaida ``the principal short-term threat to Iraq.'' What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al-Qaida in place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory. We saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al-Qaida following the Soviet Union withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: Establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the ``jihad wave'' to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel--none of which will commence until the completion of stage one: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is, Are we?

The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not, by any means, intend to cede the battlefield to al-Qaida. On the contrary, the 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 strategy of the last 3\1/2\ years.

MG Rick Lynch, who is directing a major part of the Baghdad offensive, said over the weekend that an early American withdrawal would clear the way for the enemy to come back to areas now being cleared of insurgents. ``When we go out there,'' he said, ``the first question they ask is: `Are you staying?' And the second is: `How can we help?' ''

General Lynch added that should U.S. forces pull back before the job is complete, we risk ``an environment where the enemy could come back and fill the void.''

On Monday, last Monday, Lieutenant General Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq said:

My assessment right now is I need more time. I'm seeing

some progress now here in Iraq. We have really just started

what the Iraqis term ``liberating'' them from al-Qaida.

Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority would turn Iraq into a failed State and a terrorist sanctuary in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed State emerge after U.S. disengagement once before, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with impunity. We know that today there are terrorists in Iraq who are planning attacks against Americans. We cannot make this fatal mistake twice.

As my friend, GEN Brent Scowcroft, has said recently, one of the men I respect more than most any in America:

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 recently written:

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

bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by

comparison.

Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we will 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. Iran will comfortably step into the power vacuum left by a U.S. withdrawal, and such an aggrandizement of fundamentalist power has great potential to spark greater Sunni-Shia conflicts across the region.

Leaving prematurely would induce Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Egypt to Israel, Turkey and others, to feel their own security eroding and may well induce them to act in ways that prompt wider instability. The potential for genocide, wider war, spiraling oil prices, and the perception of strategic American defeat is real, and no vote on this floor will change that.

Don't take my word for it. Consult, perhaps, the Iraq Study Group, which says:

A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of

operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even

globally. Al-Qaida will portray any failure by the United

States in Iraq as a sinificant victory that will be featured

prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and

in the world.

The report goes on to say that:

A premature American departure from Iraq would almost

certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further

deterioration of conditions. The near-term results would be a

significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional

destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al-Qaida

would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.

Or perhaps ask the Iraqis. BG Qassim Attam, the chief Iraqi spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, said last Sunday the Iraqi military and police force need more time before they are capable of assuming control of the country's security.

Or maybe our intelligence agencies which in the January National Intelligence Estimate concluded:

If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term

of this estimate, we judge this almost certainly would

lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of

sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to

the Iraqi government, and have adverse consequences for

national reconciliation. The ISF would be unlikely to

survive as a nonsectarian national institution;

neighboring countries might intervene openly in the

conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced

population displacement would be probable; AQI outside

Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country to plan

increased attacks in and out of Iraq, and spiraling

violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with

Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy,

could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.

These are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal. I hope the supporters of such a move will tell us what they believe to be the likely consequences of this course of action. Should their amendment become law and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or less stable? 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? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever likelier?

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.

How we leave Iraq is very important. As the Iraq Study Group found:

If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range

consequences could eventually require the United States to

return.

General Petraeus and his commanders believe they have a strategy that can, over time, lead to success in Iraq. General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come to Washington in September to report on the status of their efforts and those of the Iraqis. They request two things of us: the time necessary to see whether their efforts can succeed and the political courage to support them in their work. I believe we must give them both.

Right now, as we continue our debate on the war in Iraq, American soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen are fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult, and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces' storied past. Americans who fought in France's hedgerow country; those who bled in the sands and jungles of the Pacific Islands, who braved the onslaught of the Chinese Army in the frozen terrain of Korea and who fought a desperate battle to retake Hue from the enemy during the Tet Offensive and against numerically superior forces in an isolated Marine base at Khe San, will recognize and honor the sacrifice of Americans who now fight with such valor, determination, and skill to defend the security interests and the honor of our country in desperate battles in Iraq.

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 the sacrifice of those Americans who, despite the mistakes and the failures of both civilian and military leaders, shouldered a rifle and risked everything--everything--so the country they love so well might not suffer the many dangerous consequences of defeat.

We read in our leading newspapers about those veterans of the Iraq war who have organized to oppose its continuation. They have fought for America's freedom, and they have every right to exercise their freedom, to oppose their Government's policies. I wish, though, that the press would pay at least equal attention to the many veterans--many more veterans, many more veterans--who have fought, suffered, and witnessed the ultimate sacrifice, the loss of their dearest friends, and yet are still committed to America's success in Iraq, and to those who have served multiple tours in this terrible war and yet reenlist because they remain steadfast in the belief that they can achieve the mission they have already risked so much to achieve. The American public, those who still support our effort in Iraq and those who desire a quick end to it, should be daily reminded that although our country is deeply divided about this war, most of the many thousands of Americans who have suffered its worst miseries are still resolved--still resolved-- that it not end in an American defeat.

Our new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding where our previous tactics failed us. We are taking from the enemy and holding territory that was once given up for lost. Those who have falsely described General Petraeus's efforts as ``staying the course'' are the real advocates of continuing on the course of failure. Many of those who decry the way we got into this war and the way we fought it are now advocating a way out of it that suffers from more willful refusal to face facts than they accuse the administration of exhibiting. Although we all seem to be united in recognizing the mistakes and failures of the past, the proponents of reducing our forces in Iraq and keeping them in secure bases from which they could occasionally launch search and destroy missions are proposing to return to the very tactics that have brought us to the point of trying to salvage from the wreckage of those mistakes a last best hope for success.

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. So far, the Maliki Government has not risen to that challenge, and it must do so. It is obvious that America is losing our resolve to continue sacrificing its sons and daughters, while the Iraqi Government will not take the political risks to do what is plainly in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

But we do not fight only for the interest of Iraqis, Mr. President, we fight for ours as well.

We, too, we Members of Congress, must face our responsibilities honestly and bravely. What is asked of us is so less onerous than what we have asked from our servicemen and women, but no less consequential. We need not risk our lives, nor our health, but only our political advantages so that General Petraeus has the time and resources he has asked for to follow up on his recent successes and help save Iraq and America from the catastrophe that would be an American defeat. That is not much to risk compared to the sacrifices made by Americans fighting in Iraq or the terrible consequences of our defeat. For if we withdraw from Iraq, if we choose to lose there, there is no doubt in my mind, no doubt at all, that 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.

Little is asked of us to help prevent this catastrophe, but so much depends on our willingness to do so, on the sincerity of our pledge to serve America's interests before our own. The Americans who must make the greatest sacrifices have earned the right to insist that we do our duty, as best as we can see it, and accept willingly and graciously whatever small sacrifice we must make with our own personal and partisan ambitions. Ours is a noisy, restive, and contentious profession. It has always been thus, and it always will be. But 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 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. The history of this country, after all, is not merely a chronicle of political winners and losers, it is a judgment of who has and who has not contributed to the continued success of America, the greatest political experiment in human history.

It is my sincere wish that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, should know in our hearts whatever mistakes we have made in our lives, personally or politically, whatever acclaim we have achieved or disappointment we have suffered, that we have, in the end, earned history's favor. 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.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will respond very briefly to the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts on several points in his thoughtful statement.

He talks about indefinite--indefinitely the United States Armed Forces in Iraq. I think that is a far cry from what we are seeking here. What we are seeking here is an opportunity for the surge strategy to have a chance to succeed, the last part of which was put in place a few weeks ago. In fact, as the Washington Post points out:

Generals have devised a new strategy, believing they are

making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi

army, and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions. Before

Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering

withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the

months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer

some new hope.

It is not about indefinite presence, it is about giving a new strategy a chance to succeed. I find it ironic, in a way, that I was one of the greatest critics of the Rumsfeld-Casey strategy--which was doomed to failure--which was a replica of the old search and destroy, where we went in and tried to kill people and left. This new strategy, this new general, I think, is showing some signs of success, and--not leaving our forces there ``indefinitely''--allowing this strategy a chance to succeed is important.

There are very few people in the world I admire more than Natan Sharansky, a man who knows the meaning of oppression, imprisonment, and suffering, and he lives in the region. Natan Sharansky says:

A precipitous withdrawal--

Which is what we are talking about here, Mr. President, not an indefinite U.S. presence.

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

bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by

comparison. Without U.S. troops in place to quell some of the

violence, Iranian-backed Shiite militias would dramatically

increase their attacks on Sunnis. Sunni militias backed by

the Saudis or others would retaliate in kind, drawing Iraq

more and more into a vicious cycle of violence. If Iraq

descended into a full-blown civil war, the chaos could

trigger similar clashes throughout the region as Sunni-Shiite

tensions spill across Iraq's borders. The death toll and

displacement of civilians could climb exponentially.

I am quoting from a piece Natan Sharansky wrote entitled ``Leave Iraq and Brace for a Bigger Bloodbath.''

We are not seeking an indefinite presence of the United States of America in Iraq. We are seeking the opportunity for this surge to have a chance to succeed. As General Lynch was quoted as saying:

Surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to

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

force, and we now have that force. We can conduct detailed

kinetic strikes, we can do coordinate searches, and deny the

enemy sanctuaries. If those surge forces go away, that

capability goes away, and the security forces aren't ready

yet to do that mission.

I am not asking us to blindly follow the lead of our military leaders, but I am asking us to give the person whom we unanimously voted to confirm as our military commander in Iraq, knowing full well what his strategy and surge was, a chance to succeed.

Time after time we hear General Lynch, the 3rd ID commander, say:

Pulling out before the mission was accomplished would be a

mess. You would find the enemy regularly gaining ground,

reestablishing sanctuaries, building more IEDs, and the

violence would escalate.

I share the frustration that all Americans do. This war has been mishandled. We have paid an enormous sacrifice, both the sacrifice of American blood and treasure, but I believe, as the Washington Post said:

Before Congress begins managing rotation schedules and

ordering withdrawals, it should at least give these generals

the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can

offer some new hope.

I hope we understand what this debate is about, whether we will set a timetable for troop withdrawals within

120 days or whether we will give General Petraeus and his able commanders and the brave young men and women who are serving an opportunity to see if this new strategy can succeed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bloodbath . . .

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

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

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

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

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

term solution.

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

General Lynch, 3rd ID commander, says:

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

mess.

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

Continuing from General Lynch:

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

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

escalate.

I have already quoted before from Henry Kissinger.

General Lynch:

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

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

forces I need to conduct that mission.

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

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

General Lynch:

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

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

to force, and we now have that force.

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

We can conduct detailed kinetic strikes, we can do cordon

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

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

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

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

[reduction of American presence in Iraq] should follow

success in our efforts, not the calendar or the performance

of others.

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

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

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

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

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

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

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

The generals who have devised--

The generals whom the Senator from Illinois derides--

The generals who have devised a new strategy believe they

are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the

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

Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering

withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the

months they ask for to see whether their strategy can offer

some new hope.

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

General Lynch says:

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

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

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

can hand over to the Iraqi security forces. Everybody wants

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

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

General Odierno says:

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

how the current offensive targeting al-Qaida and Iraq

terrorists is working and how it could lead to political

progress in the months ahead.

Odierno said:

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

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

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

order to continue that progress so that the political peace

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

term.

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current military operations in Iraq appear

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

plan. What can we realistically expect to achieve?

Petraeus: Our primary goal is to work with our Iraqi

counterparts to improve security for the Iraqi people. This

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

tough political issues they face and to pursue internal

reconciliation.

He goes on to say:

As to reasonable expectations, we can expect a reduction in

sectarian deaths and the gradual spread of Iraqi government

authority. The level of sectarian deaths in Baghdad in June

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

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

Wherever we operate, we try to reconnect Iraqi ministries

and local governments to meet the needs of the people.

Finally, we provide opportunities for Iraqis to use their

local knowledge to help root out al Qaeda. Successful

operations of this nature have played out in recent months in

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

al Qaeda and sided with the Coalition.

Question:

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

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

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

General Petraeus's answer:

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

wanted more troops, more time or more unity among their

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

Iraq, it would be more time.

I repeat, General Petraeus said:

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

would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor

that faces countless challenges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result has been a search for some kind of politically

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

surge and withdrawal.

I think that adequately describes the Reed-Levin amendment.

The problem is that these politics do not fit the military

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

commitment to something like half of today's troop presence

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

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

militarily.

Perhaps the most popular centrist option today is drawn

from the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendations of last

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

American mission from one of training and supporting the

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

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

proposed legislative effort that Domenici threw his support

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

aisle on Capitol Hill.

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

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

safe yet productive mission of training but not fighting--

this would be neither safe nor productive.

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

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

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator and I also went together and saw at that time how Ramadi and Fallujah were basically battlegrounds of enormous proportions. Isn't it true that recently both Ramadi--particularly Ramadi, but also Fallujah is a basically secure area. The last time there has been an attack at Ramadi--they have gone many days. Yet somehow that escapes the notice of some of our colleagues.

In fact, I don't know if my friend from South Dakota is, is aware of what Lieutenant General Lamb, the British lieutenant general, the deputy commander of Multi-National Force, said the other day when the growing sentiment in our Congress to bring U.S. troops home sooner affected the mood of troops deployed in Iraq.

He said: I find it a touch difficult because it was so clear to them that we are making progress. It is not reflected by those who are not in the fight but are sitting back and making judgment upon what they, the troops, can see with absolute clarity.

I guess my question for the Senator from South Dakota is, Is there a disconnect between the rhetoric we hear and all of this stuff about how we are losing--and the majority leader of the Senate said we had lost-- and the realities on the ground as reflected by the men and who are fighting?

Regular order.

Regular order, Madam President.

Madam President, we have to observe the regular order here in the Senate. The Senator from Virginia is clearly not observing the regular order.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. I know she has thought long and hard about this issue, and I appreciate her thoughtful remarks. We are respectfully in disagreement.

I wish to make a few points, and then I know the Senator from Michigan and others are waiting. I intend to, I tell my colleagues, exercise my right of recognition as we go from speaker to speaker, as we are at 10 minutes of 3 in the morning.

The Senator from Maine and others have described this amendment in ways I don't quite agree with, including, among other things, some confidence in the United States permanent representative to use the voice vote and influence the United States and the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council. I am not prepared to put the future of Iraq under an international mediator of the United Nations Security Council. The United Nations Security Council's record has not been very good, whether it be Iran, North Korea, or other crises, including Bosnia where we had to go in basically and bail them out.

In this resolution, I would call to the attention of my colleagues that it says: After the conclusion of reduction in transition, the United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions, and the third one is engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, al- Qaida-affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.

How do you do that? How do you do that? There are some people planting IEDs who are going to kill our troops, and you say: Excuse me, sir. Are you al-Qaida or are you a Shiite militia? Oh, you are a Shiite militia? Excuse me.

What is that all about? That is one of the most unrealistic scenarios I have encountered in warfare. There is a degree of naivete associated with this resolution which is a disconnect between the reality of how warfare is conducted and the utopian United Nations Security Council international mediator. Our troops can be there in Iraq in diminished numbers, but they can only engage in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida. So I guess al-Qaida would be required to wear T-shirts that say ``al-Qaida.'' In that way, we would know, and it would be OK--it would be OK: You are al-Qaida? OK. A Shiite militia? Do whatever you think.

It was al-Qaida that blew up the Golden Dome mosque in Samara. Following that was horrendous sectarian strife. We are finally getting around--finally, belatedly--to asking those who want this withdrawal and who support this resolution to tell us what happens if this strategy fails, if the pullout fails. I quote from today's Los Angeles Times. It says:

Many lawmakers who have pushed President Bush to bring

troops home from Iraq have not developed plans to deal with

the violence that could follow a pullout, interviews with

more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans show. Many of

them acknowledge that Iraq might plunge into vicious

sectarian fighting, much like the ethnic cleansing that

consumed Bosnia a decade ago.

They acknowledge that Iraq might plunge into sectarian violence that consumed Bosnia, which was so offensive that we went into Bosnia to stop it, but if it is in another part of the world, then we won't go in. In fact, the article goes on to say:

``I wouldn't be surprised if it is horrendous,'' said House

Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, Democrat,

Wisconsin, who has helped lead the drive against the war.

'The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government,

and there is slim hope for that.''

More incredibly, the article goes on to say:

Some proponents of a withdrawal decline to discuss what the

United States should do if the violence increases. ``That's a

hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it,'' said Senate

majority leader Harry Reid.

Senator Reid is the one who announced on the floor of the Senate that the war was lost. If the war is lost and we are going to pull out, what is hypothetical? What is hypothetical about assessing the consequences of this withdrawal?

Many Democrats, however, believe that any increase in

violence would be short-term and argue that a troop drawdown

eventually would lead to a more stable Iraq and Middle East.

I know of no expert who agrees with that statement. I know of no one. In fact, the Secretary General of the United Nations, not exactly known as a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, said:

I would like to tell you that great caution should be taken

for the sake of the Iraqi people. The international community

cannot and should not abandon them. Any abrupt withdrawal or

decision may lead to a further deterioration of the situation

in Iraq.

That is a statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

I know my colleagues are waiting, but I wish to point out again another fact. General Petraeus came before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 23, 2007. General Petraeus at that time articulated the strategy which would be employed and needed to be employed and needed to be given time to succeed. In fact, General Petraeus was asked at his confirmation hearings, which was later ratified by this body by a vote--without a dissenting vote:

General Petraeus, in your view, since you have been

intimately involved in Iraq from the beginning, suppose we

announced tomorrow that we would withdraw within 4 months to

6 months. That happens to coincide with the 120 day

withdrawal that we are talking about here. What are the

results there in Iraq and in the region?

GEN Petraeus: Well, sir, I think that sectarian groups

would obviously begin to stake out their turf, try to expand

their turf. They

would do that by greatly increased ethnic cleansing. There is

a very real possibility of involvement of countries from

elsewhere in the region entering Iraq to take sides with one

or the other groups. There is a possibility certainly of an

international terrorist organization truly getting a grip on

some substantial piece of Iraq. There is the possibility of

problems in the global economy should in fact this cause a

disruption in the flow of oil and a number of other potential

outcomes, none of which are positive.

That is what General Petraeus said at his confirmation hearings. Everybody confirmed him. Everybody knew in this body what the mission was, what they intended to do, what the strategy was, and here we are a few months later pulling the plug, or attempting to pull the plug, on what General Petraeus wants to do.

I am proud of the United States of America that we went to Bosnia and stopped the ethnic cleansing. I am proud the United States of America went to Kosovo and stopped ethnic cleansing. I am ashamed we haven't gone to Darfur in some way and effected the stop of ethnic cleansing there. I am ashamed we didn't stop the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in Rwanda, and so are all of us. That is a majority opinion in this country and in this body. But now--but now, in the case of Iraq:

I wouldn't be surprised if it is horrendous.

``I wouldn't be surprised if it is horrendous.'' That is what we are condemning the people of Iraq to. And on the other side, the majority leader of the Senate--and I apologize, because I will ask him about it again on this floor:

That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it.

Now, I don't know of anybody who believes that is a hypothetical. The fact is, when we leave there is going to be a vacuum, there is going to be chaos, and there is going to be genocide. I can quote on the floor Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, General Lynch, General Petraeus, literally--General Zinni, those who oppose our presence in Iraq opposed the initial invasion, and yet believe that at least we should face up to and begin to address the consequences of withdrawal. It is not hypothetical. It is not hypothetical.

I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has been waiting patiently for, I believe, an hour or so. I note the Senator from New York is on the floor. So I will speak for a few minutes and then yield the floor.

I want to point out that again, yesterday, British Army Lieutenant General Graeme Lamb, Deputy Commander of Multinational Force, Iraq, and senior British military representative in Iraq, was asked by Jamie McIntyre of CNN about how ``the growing sentiment in our Congress to bring U.S. troops home sooner affected the mood of troops deployed in Iraq.''

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

Lieutenant General Lamb noted that those making such judgments and not taking note of the progress ``are not going out every day in a humvee.'' Moreover, he further noted that the progress the troops see is ``seldom reported.'' They see provincial councils. They see water going to people who did not have it before. They see electricity coming on line. They see stability to the networks. They see all the stuff that no one portrays.

That is the view of our deputy to General Petraeus over in Iraq. Yet I hear on the floor here--I hear again there has been no progress made, that the status quo remains, that there has been no progress. And as we get into the debate, we find that those who are supportive of this particular amendment, which requires after 120 days a departure from the conflict, have no plan B themselves. I have been asked continuously what plan B is. And plan B, after the surge, I believe details a set of difficult options. But I think it is important that we point out what has been happening in Iraq as a result of the surge, even though it has been a very short period of time.

In Anbar Province--which we all know is over here, as shown on the map. Here is Fallujah. Here is Ramadi. The fact is that last year Anbar Province we believed was lost to al-Qaida. The U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaned al-Qaida fighters out of Ramadi, which I visited last week, and other areas of western Anbar Province. Tribal sheiks broke with the terrorists and joined the coalition side. Ramadi, months ago, was Iraq's most dangerous city. It is now one of its safest. Attacks are down from 30 to 35 a day in February to zero on most days now.

Fallujah. The Iraqi police center established numerous stations and divided the city into gated districts. Violence has declined. Local intelligence tips have proliferated.

Throughout Anbar Province--this area shown right here on the map-- thousands of men are signing up for the police and army, and the locals are taking the fight to al-Qaida. All 18 major tribes in that province are now on board with the security plan. A year from now, the Iraqi Army and police could have total control of security in Ramadi, allowing American forces to safely draw down.

Mr. President, I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. President, in response to the Senator's question, I would say a couple things have happened. One is obviously, as the Senator has pointed out, the bravery and courage of our Marines and Army personnel who are there. But in addition to that, al-Qaida has been so cruel, so disruptive, and causing so many difficulties that the sheiks, the Sunni sheiks have come over on our side.

About a year ago, they were recruiting about 20 to 25 people a month to join the local police. The last time they had a recruitment drive, some 1,200 young Sunnis showed up.

Now, I will freely admit to my friend from Alabama, you will never see this probably in much of the media reporting today. That is why you have to go over there and get feet on the ground, as I know the Senator from Alabama has, the Senator from Minnesota and others, as well as the Senator from New York. But you have to see it, and you have to talk to these people.

It brings up another point. These soldiers, marines, airmen, others, men and women, pay attention to what is going on here on the floor of the Senate. They pay attention when the majority leader of the Senate says the war is ``lost.'' They pay attention when people, previous speakers have said nothing has changed, no improvement. They pay attention to that.

General Petraeus said in response to a question I asked him a long time ago--I said:

Suppose we send you additional troops, and we tell those

troops we support you, but we are convinced you cannot

accomplish your mission, and we do not support the mission we

are sending you on. What effect does that have on the morale

of your troops?

That is a question I asked General Petraeus back in January. General Petraeus said:

Well, it would not be a beneficial effect, sir. Obviously,

a commander would like to go forward with as much flexibility

as he can achieve. I was assured yesterday by the Secretary

of Defense, if we need additional assets, my job is to ask

for them.

Of course, Lieutenant General, British Army General Lamb was much more frank in his response, where he said:

While it is clear to them that we're making progress, it is

not reflected by those who are not in the fight but are

sitting back and making judgment upon what they, the troops,

can see with absolute clarity.

So my answer to the Senator from Alabama is--and I will go through some more areas where we made progress--it is very unfortunate that more Americans do not know not only about the success but of the incredible difficulty of this kind of combat, and yet these young people are doing such a magnificent job.

Mr. President, I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Minnesota, he is exactly right. The fact is the people there are sick of al-Qaida, as he well points out. The sheiks are on our side. Al-Qaida has reacted, predictably, very violently. They have assassinated some of these sheiks. They have assassinated their families. Their lives are threatened every day.

But the fact is, they are sick and tired of al-Qaida. They are turning out in large numbers to join the local police. And they are doing, frankly, a job that surprises many of us.

I wish also to comment in my remarks that this is a long way--a long way--from the security situation we want. But somehow to stand on the floor of the Senate and say we have not had some signs of success I think flies in the face of the assessment of the generals and those we placed in charge and the facts on the ground.

South of Baghdad, as I was saying, in this area, as shown on the map, Operation Phantom Thunder is intended to stop insurgents present in the Baghdad belts from originating attacks in the capital itself.

A brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, which I visited, is operating in Baghdad belts that have been havens for al-Qaida. And the slog is tough. It is very tough in that part, south of Baghdad, since many of the al-Qaida and other insurgents have migrated out of Baghdad into that area. But the soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division are moving forward, all of them. Commanders report that the local sheiks there are increasingly siding with the coalition against al-Qaida. Southeast of Baghdad, the military is targeting al-Qaida in safe havens that they maintain along the Tigris River. In Baghdad itself--the key to all of this--the military, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, continues to establish joint security stations and deploy throughout the city. These efforts have produced positive results, according to General Petraeus and others. Sectarian violence has fallen since January. The total number of car bombings and suicide attacks declined in May and June. The number of locals coming forward with intelligence tips has risen.

Make no mistake, violence in Baghdad remains at unacceptably high levels. Suicide bombers and other threats pose formidable challenges, and other difficulties abound. Nevertheless, there appears to be overall movement in the right direction.

North of Baghdad, the Diyala area--up here--Iraqi and American troops have surged and are fighting to deny al-Qaida sanctuary in the city of Bakuba. For the first time since the war began, America showed up in force and did not quickly withdraw from the area as had been the case in the previous failed strategy. In response, locals have formed a new alliance with the coalition to counter al-Qaida. Diyala, which was the center of Abu Mus'ab al Zarqawi's proposed Islamic caliphate, finally has a chance to turn aside the forces of extremism.

I offer these observations not in order to present a rosy scenario of the challenges we continue to face in Iraq. As last week's horrific bombing in Salah ad Din Province illustrates so graphically, the threats to Iraq's stability have not gone away, nor are they likely to go away in the near future, and our brave men and women in Iraq will continue to face great challenges. What I do believe is that while the mission to bring a degree of security to Iraq, into Baghdad and its environs in particular, in order to establish the necessary precondition for political and economic progress, while that mission is still in its early stages, the progress our military has made should encourage all of us.

It is also clear that the overall strategy General Petraeus has put into place, a traditional counterinsurgency strategy which emphasizes protecting the population and which gets our troops off the bases and into the areas they are trying to protect, is the correct one.

Some of my colleagues argue that we should return troops to the forward operating bases--that is basically what would happen if we passed the Levin-Reed amendment--and confine their activities to training and targeted counterterrorism operations. That is basically what this resolution says. That is precisely what we did for 3\1/2\ years, and the situation in Iraq got worse--precisely. I am surprised my colleagues would advocate a return to the failed Rumsfeld-Casey strategy. No one can be certain whether this new strategy, which remains in the early stages, can bring about greater stability. We can be sure that should the United States seek to legislate an end to this strategy as it is just beginning, then we will fail for certain.

Mr. President, I read this earlier, this resolution. This resolution incredibly says that we can only--the mission is restricted to only fighting al-Qaida. I guess al-Qaida will have to wear T-shirts that say they are al-Qaida. I guess our troops are expected, if someone is planting an IED, to say: Excuse me, sir. Are you al-Qaida or Shiite? If you are Shiite, go ahead and plant it. Please.

Now that the military effort is showing some signs of progress, the space is opening for political progress. Yet, rather than seize the opportunity, the Government, under Prime Minister Maliki, is not functioning as it must. We see little evidence of reconciliation and little progress toward meeting the benchmarks laid out by the President. The Iraqi Government can function; the question is whether it will.

I would like to urge my colleagues to take a look at one more chart. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues, but I think we ought to look at the region. I think we ought to have a look at this region today. With Iraq obviously in the center of an area of the world from which comes the world's supply of oil, from which comes the recruits for al-Qaida, from which comes the primary source--not the only source, as we have found, but the primary source--of suicide bombers and people who would rather commit suicide and take others' lives along with their own, what happens when Iraq evolves into chaos and genocide?

Iranians are already exporting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq, IEDs that are capable of even penetrating the armor of our tanks. They are exporting into Iraq not only terrorists and those who have orchestrated attacks, including the kidnapping of American soldiers--there is very compelling evidence that they were paid to do that--but they are also increasing their influence in all of southern Iraq. Religious leaders have gone into southern Iraq, into the small towns as well as Basra. Basra has become, unfortunately, a very dangerous city, thanks to Iranian influence. In the meantime, the Iranians, emboldened by our failure in Iraq, continue to do other things as well, including developing nuclear weapons, including providing support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

We see the Saudis now becoming more and more concerned about the fate of the Sunnis. In fact, a few weeks ago, the King of Saudi Arabia made comments very critical about the United States of America for the first time in anyone's recorded memory. Why would he do such a thing? One, our failure; two, they live in the neighborhood and they can't leave. When we talk about telling them we are leaving, then they have to adjust to it. There is very little doubt that the Saudis, with their support of madrasas and other extremist training grounds, are responsible for many of the problems.

Jordan now has--see how small Jordan is--Jordan now has 750,000 Iraqi

refugees. How many more do you think will pour into Jordan if this instability and chaos ensues, which the majority leader of the Senate has stated, as short a time ago as yesterday, as hypothetical. I think there is very little doubt that the destabilization of Jordan would be at least increased.

What about our friends the Syrians who continue to export people who are suicide bombers into Iraq? The majority of suicide bombers, according to experts, aren't Iraqis; they come from other parts of the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia, from Pakistan, from Afghanistan, and other places. What about the Syrians? If you might remember, after our initial victory in Iraq and the assassination of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Hariri, Mr. Assad, Bashar Assad, a former optometrist in London, when his father died, was on his heels. There was supposed to be an investigation going on of the Syrian involvement in the assassination of Hariri, and there have been other assassinations as well.

Meanwhile, in southern Lebanon, despite a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah, Hezbollah is now being rearmed by the Syrians, and their rockets are being resupplied-- Katyusha rockets and other weapons are being supplied to the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Some believe it is a matter of time before there is a reignition of rocket attacks and conflicts in southern Lebanon.

What about on the other side? What about the Palestinian area? We now see a situation in the Palestinian areas where Gaza is now controlled by Hamas, an organization dedicated to the extinction of the State of Israel. My friends, here is a stark fact: We pull out of Iraq, Iraq devolves into chaos, and the pressures and the danger to the State of Israel is greater than at any time in its history. I don't say that is my opinion; that is the opinion of the military and political leaders of Israel today.

One other aspect that I wish to point out. We know the Kurdish area is probably the most stable part of Iraq for a variety of reasons, including their experience in self-governance. But the Turks have made it very clear that if the Kurds attempt to establish an independent state, they will not stand for it; they will take action militarily. I am not saying that; they have said it. So we have a deterioration in Baghdad, in Iraq, the Kurds declare their independence, and the Turks then feel they are required to take military action because of the insurgency of Kurds who have launched attacks out of the Kurdish areas into Turkey.

So I think it is important for us to recognize there is a lot at stake here. It isn't just Iraq. Certainly, Iraq is part of it, but it is not just Iraq; it is certainly other parts of the region as well.

I hope when my colleagues say, as the majority leader said, ``It is only a hypothetical'' if chaos evolves in the region, that we are required to consider the situation in the entire region and what happens right here where the world's supply of oil--the majority of the world's supply of oil--comes from as well, that we consider the consequences of our actions.

I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan and I wish to take a couple minutes while we make a unanimous consent request: that at least the majority leader's time will be from 10:50 to 11 a.m.; from 10:40 to 10:50 will be for the Republican leader; 10:30 to 10:40 will be for the chairman of the committee; and 10:20 to 10:30 will be allocated to me. I ask unanimous consent that be agreed to.

Mr. President, finally, could I point out, during the entire night we have been basically going back and forth on both sides of the issue. I think all Senators who sought recognition were able to speak sometime during the night. I hope we would be able to continue going back and forth, unless there is a lack of speakers on this side.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman, and reserving the right to object, I would hope my colleagues would recognize that gives us an hour and 10 minutes until the unanimous consent agreement kicks in. I know there are additional speakers on both sides to take up that time. So I hope they would be economical with their views.

Given the number of speakers, if I could say, I think maybe 10 minutes maximum, and I would add to that unanimous consent request that Senator Craig and Senator Chambliss be added on this side in rotation. I think up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, on this side, I ask unanimous consent to add to that unanimous consent request that 10 minutes each be allocated to Senators Craig, Chambliss, and Cornyn. I think given the spillover, that probably will take up the remaining time.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, may the Senator from Florida also have 1 minute and the vote be delayed by the appropriate time taken by the three speakers?

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists who oppose the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq.

The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single Member of this body and, to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last 24 hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday. The consequences of an American defeat are just as great, the cost of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died, or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our sound bites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved is remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow, the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else has changed.

In Iraq, the American soldiers--marines, sailors, and airmen--are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult, and consequential as the great battles of our Armed Forces' storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard Senators repeat certain arguments over and over. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating ``staying the course,'' which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus, we have changed course. We are now fighting with a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. The new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain.

The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed--a smaller force confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search-and-destroy missions and train the Iraqi military--are precisely the tactics employed for most of the war, which have, by anyone's account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region, and the security of the United States that our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a bit about the folly of staying the course, though the real outcome, should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. Is that our primary responsibility? Really? Is that how we construe our role, to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will--and I am as sure of this as I am of anything--seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life.

I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, or I try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others, and that is to do everything in my power to use whatever meager talents I possess and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, even if I must stand to thwart popular public opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people, I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience--though our patience is nearly exhausted--and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday, that is how I construe it today, and that is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not

just for Iraq but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it. I must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that. And I am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues, and to all Americans who disagree with me, that as long as we have a chance to succeed, we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history's. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public's judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I would like to clarify with the chairman that we intend to not only take up the wounded warrior amendment but also, if there are other amendments, if we debate and discuss wounded warrior and there is time for that--we want to tell our colleagues that there are some 98 pending amendments that have not been addressed as of yet, and we would like to address those as soon as possible since we will obviously have a very busy week on this bill next week as well as today. We have 4\1/2\ hours between now and the next vote.

My other question to the distinguished chairman is, Is it his desire that we perhaps have another amendment that could be voted on at that time?

I thank the Senator from Michigan. I understand there were already several amendments to the wounded warrior legislation, which have been accepted on both sides, which we will be presenting. I would ask the indulgence of the chairman to make a brief statement before we take up the wounded warrior amendment bill. Would that be OK? It is not on wounded warrior.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Michigan. I know he shares my concern about the work that needs to be done in the next few days to try to get this bill completed. We do urge our colleagues to come forth with relevant amendments. As I mentioned, there are at this time, obviously, a number of amendments my colleagues will want considered and debated, including two very big amendments on Iraq, the Salazar-Alexander amendment, as well as the Reed-Levin amendment which I am sure will take up considerable time. Before we move to the wounded warrior bill, which I praise for its bipartisanship and its effort to bring together both sides of the aisle to address one of the most compelling issues of our time, and that is the treatment of the men and women who are serving in the military--I will have more remarks about that later--I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to an editorial that ran last Sunday in the New York Times titled ``The Road Home.''

I ask unanimous consent to have that editorial printed in the Record.

It is worth spending a few moments to discuss this editorial because it is not often that one of America's flagship papers declares as lost a war which 160,000 brave American soldiers are trying mightily to win.

Beginning with its first line in this remarkable editorial, ``It is time for the United States to leave Iraq without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit,'' the Times editorial advocates a precipitous withdrawal of American forces. It does so conceding that such a withdrawal is likely to increase the chaos and bloodshed in Iraq, not decrease it, and that a redeployment could prompt ``reprisals, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide.'' A remarkable statement that a newspaper that frequently calls for the United States to bring its national power to bear for moral purposes, not the least of which in the Darfur region of Sudan, could so easily throw out consequences that are so terrible.

In the opinion of the New York Times, apparently genocide is not worth fighting to prevent, nor is it worth fighting to prevent ``potentially destabilizing refugee flows'' hitting Jordan and Syria or to stop Iran from filling the power vacuum left behind by our departure or disrupting a likely terrorist sanctuary. No, none of these things are worth fighting for in the Times' opinion because it has concluded that ``keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.''

This misunderstanding clouds the entirety of the editorial. The Times appears to believe that because things have been mismanaged since 2003 and because violence remains at unacceptably high levels, things simply can't get worse, so we should withdraw and at least save ourselves. But this is sheer folly. Things in Iraq, however bad they have been and remain, could get far, far worse. Anyone who recalls Cambodia or Rwanda or any of the other places that have seen killing on a massive scale knows just how terrible violence can be when it spirals out of control.

The consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq include emboldening terrorists, inducing a wider regional war, fanning the flames of a Sunni-Shia conflict, putting millions of lives at risk, and destabilizing an area key to America's strategic interests.

The editorial States bluntly, ``Whatever [the President's] cause was, it is lost,'' because ``additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.'' That is a remarkable statement, a remarkable statement. ``Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.'' I just came back from a visit. I know I have been pilloried for saying that there has been progress in Iraq. Well, they can pillory General Petraeus and they can pillory their own reporters who have clearly pointed out that there have been measurements of success--and a long, long way to go, but the fact is, there has been some success.

The fact is, in Baghdad, as General Petraeus attests, it is demonstrably untrue that additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything. In Baghdad, U.S. military and Iraqi forces are establishing joint security stations and patrolling the city together to manage violence. Since January, sectarian violence has fallen. The total number of car bombings and suicide attacks has declined in May and June, and the number of Iraqis coming forward with information is rising.

The President offered an assessment today. There are some areas of success. There are some areas of no movement, and there are some areas of failure, particularly where the Iraqi Government is concerned. We should know that. In an area south of Bagdad, commanders report increasing numbers of local tribes siding with the coalition against al-Qaida and similar effects north of the city.

This editorial makes the breathtaking assertion that the war in Iraq is ``a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists.'' Someone from the editorial board must have neglected to inform our troops on the ground, who, when I visited them last week in Baghdad and Anbar, spent several hours briefing me on their counterterrorism operations. The editors must have also neglected to speak with General Petraeus, who has called Iraq ``the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign.''

In case terrorists remain in Iraq and seek to plan attacks outside the country, the Times has an answer. The United States can set up bases in Kuwait and Qatar and even in northern Iraq because:

. . . the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective

raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq.

Yet I wonder whether the Times has thought through any of the logistical issues associated with waging a counterterrorism effort from a neighboring country. Do we send American counterterrorism teams into Iraq for these operations? Do they remain in place? How are they supplied? We have seen for 3\1/2\ years that such efforts are much less successful when our troops are confined to forward operating bases than when our soldiers are deployed among the population, in the cities. I can hardly imagine how difficult it would be to wage the same struggle not from forward operating bases but from a neighboring nation.

These troops would not be needed to help stop an incipient civil war because, as the Times tells us, ``that war is raging, right now.'' Iraq may fragment into separate states, the editorial goes on, but ``American troops are not going to stop that from happening.''

Well, a couple days ago, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari explained that the dangers of a quick American pullout from Iraq could include a civil war. I suspect the foreign minister means a real, full- scale civil war, one that dwarfs the violence taking place today. I also suspect the foreign minister understands there is no clear delineation between sectarian violence, whether or not it constitutes civil war, and terrorist activity. Al-Qaida bombed the mosque in Samara in a deliberate attempt to foment sectarian violence. Zarqawi wrote of his plans to target the Shia before his own death. Walking away from Iraq would not simply leave an ongoing sectarian struggle simmering away at its own pace, sealed off from the world. Civil war in Iraq has real implications for American national security interests.

After the withdrawal prompts the terrible consequences that even the New York Times foresees, it will be incumbent upon the United States to ameliorate the fallout. This, the editorial page tells us, can be done by talking to Iran--by talking to Iran--to pressure it to ``allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future.''

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, I think it is a pretty safe bet that Tehran will not be open to many of Washington's entreaties following a withdrawal. The much more likely course is that Iran will comfortably step into the power vacuum left by a U.S. redeployment. When it does so, though, the Times would have Washington ``persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis.'' My

friends, that would be a tough sell, to put it mildly, if the Iranians are in the regional ascendance.

Perhaps the root of the New York Times' misconception of the war in Iraq is crystallized by a sentence in its final paragraph. It expresses fierce opposition to ``allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end on purpose.'' ``Allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end on purpose.'' I think all of us would oppose any war without end or purpose, but this does not describe the conflict in Iraq. We remain in Iraq to bring enough security to allow the Government to function in a way that will protect the people of Iraq and, as a result, the national interests of the United States. That is the purpose and the end goal of this war, as I see it.

But do not take my word for it, Mr. President. Ask the thousands of brave men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way every day. I had the privilege to once again visit many of them in Iraq last week, and I can tell my colleagues they understand the purpose. I wish I could say the same of our journalistic friends in New York.

Mr. President, I wish to remind my colleagues about the statements that have been made by various people who are experts on Iraq and are respected national security advisers, including people such as Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger, and many others who have been involved in this issue, many of whom, like General Zinni, were opposed from the beginning to the conflict but now believe setting a date for withdrawal will be a disaster of monumental consequences.

I hope the editorial page of the New York Times would listen to some of those people. For example, Henry Kissinger, who recently said that setting a date for withdrawal will lead to chaos in the region; including people such as General Zinni, who had opposed our intervention in Iraq to start with, who said setting a date for withdrawal would have catastrophic consequences.

I have seen some interesting op-ed pieces in my time. I have rarely seen one that is farther off the mark than the editorial in last Sunday's New York Times. I am convinced that if we pursued that course, as the editorial leads: that the war is lost, and it is time for the United States to leave Iraq without any more delay, and the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit--is a remarkable statement by one of the largest newspapers in America.

Henry Kissinger--I think we can find wisdom in several suggestions put forward by him. But we also should heed his words, as well as many others. He is correct to say: ``precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster,'' one that ``would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia,'' produce greater violence among Iraqi factions and ``embolden radical Islamism'' around the world.

My friends, I hope the editorial writers for the New York Times would pay attention to Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's deputy chief, who said that the United States is merely delaying our ``inevitable'' defeat in Iraq, and that ``the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory.''

Their target is not Iraq. Pay attention to their words. Their target is the United States of America.

Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Mus'ab al- Zarqawi before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel--none of which will commence until the completion of stage one--expel the Americans from Iraq.

If the New York Times editorial board does not pay attention to the words of people like me and General Scowcroft and General Zinni and Dr. Kissinger, and many other people who are experts, I would hope they would pay attention to the words of Zarqawi, Zawahiri, and others who have made very clear what their intentions are in Iraq.

Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin offer the wounded warrior legislation or whatever he wants.

How long?

I withdraw it. I just wonder how long, again.

Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Michigan to amend the request to immediately following the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota that then there would be the offering of the wounded warrior amendment?

Mr. President, I begin by echoing the remarks of the chairman of the committee that we appreciate the partnership with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a partnership led by Senator Akaka and Senator Craig. We have worked closely together in trying to come up with one of the most aptly titled pieces of legislation that I have ever been involved in, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act.

It is important to point out that we are making this part of the Defense authorization bill, which we believe has a very good chance of being signed by the President, as the quickest way to get this legislation enacted. There was a great deal of discussion back and forth as to whether it should stand by itself or should be part of the Defense Authorization Act.

I know I speak for all of us, and that is if something happens to this legislation, we would come back with a separate piece of legislation so that we can make sure we act as quickly as possible.

We were all deeply disappointed by the conditions at Walter Reed that were reported in February of this year and the problems that our wounded warriors faced after their inpatient care was complete--living in substandard conditions at building 18, being treated poorly, battling a Cold-War disability evaluation process and, for some, falling through the cracks.

Since February of 2007, there have been many encouraging changes. First and foremost, Secretary Gates insisted on accountability for the leadership failures that led to the tragedy at Walter Reed.

In April of this year, the Army stood up a new warrior transition brigade at Walter Reed to attend to the needs of wounded and ill soldiers in both Active and Reserve components. This model of soldiers caring for soldiers is now spreading throughout the Army.

I think we are on the right track to address the problems at Walter Reed, but there is much more to be done. And I emphasize, we all recognize there is much more to be done. But I do believe this legislation is a very important and valuable contribution to the effort that must be ongoing. We must match the heroism of the wonderful young men and women who have given so much for our country.

Let me tell you who some of my heroes are: SGT Ted Wade was grievously wounded in Iraq in 2004, who together with his young wife Sara has bravely battled for 4 years the maze of health care and benefit evaluations of the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Social Security; lost medical records, confusing and conflicting medical and physical evaluations, and Sara even lost her job. These brave young people have also lost time. Four years is too much to ask of someone who has given so much for his country.

SFC Jeff Mittman is a brave Army soldier who was wounded 2 years ago by an RPG that tore away a significant portion of his face. Today, Jeff is still on active duty, though he returns to Walter Reed frequently for special surgery. Together with his wife Christy, they have continued to raise their children. Jeff is back at school. As a testament to his heroism, Jeff says of his extraordinary injuries: ``I got hit hard, but I'll walk it off.'' This weekend, he and his family will celebrate the second anniversary of his being alive.

SGT Eric Edmondson, a soldier who suffered severe traumatic brain injury in October 2005 and was thought to be without hope of recovery, today is standing on his own, thanks to the work of his remarkable therapist and his own strong determination to survive.

Petty Officer Mark Robbins is a Navy Seal who lost his eye from a sniper's bullet after saving the lives of his buddies in an RPG attack in Iraq in April of this year. Mark, who walked to the medical evacuation helicopter on his own after being wounded, is recovering today at his home in San Diego. His determination to carry on in the fight in spite of his injury is not the exception among our young men and women, it is a tribute.

I also think it is appropriate from time to time, even though what happened at Walter Reed was a disgrace and a scandal and a source of national shame, and it is important that we continue to emphasize that there are thousands and thousands of people who work in our armed services hospitals and clinics and also in veterans affairs who are present at our hospitals, who take care of our aging veterans from the ``greatest generation,'' Korea, and the Vietnam war. These people labor most of the time without credit, most

of the time without publicity, and do a magnificent job.

The system is broken, not the people--not the people--who serve with dedication and patience and care, and love our veterans in a way which should be an example to all of us, and we should never forget that as we try to fix a broken system.

As I mentioned, these are some of America's heroes, my heroes, who have sustained terrible wounds, whose lives have been saved by the finest medical professionals in the world, and who, with their families, face the challenge of a long recovery and rebuilding their lives.

This legislation, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, will make a difference in the lives of our wounded warriors and their families. It bridges the gap in health care coverage for the severely wounded and ensures their access to the broadest possible range of health care options.

It authorizes additional care and support for families who are caring for the wounded. It requires the Secretary of Defense and Veterans Affairs to develop and implement new policies to better manage the care and transition of our wounded soldiers. It empowers a special board to review disability ratings of 20 percent or less and to restore to a wounded soldier, if appropriate, a higher disability rating or retired status.

Mr. President, that issue alone, of disability ratings, is one that, frankly, the Senator from Michigan and I cannot understand why it continued; that from one medical evaluation board, a certain level of disability and compensation would be adjudged while on active duty, go directly to the VA, and then another assessment is made with a different level of disability. It is just nonsensical. And I would like to say to all my colleagues, and I know we share a responsibility as well, we blamed the military, we blamed the VA, and we blamed a lot of people, but part of the responsibility lies right here with those of us who are supposed to have been paying better attention than we did. So I wish to make that perfectly clear, that I personally--and the Congress--share in the responsibility for having not fixed this system and some of the problems that have existed for a long time.

This legislation empowers a special board, as I mentioned, to review disability ratings. It authorizes additional funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, encouraging public and private partnerships to address these signature injuries of the war, and supports efforts to erase the stigma associated with seeking care.

We found out, much to our sorrow, that in this kind of conflict, brain injuries are probably far more prevalent than almost any other conflict in which our Nation has engaged. We also have found out, thank God, that we are able to save a higher percentage of those wounded than we have in any other conflict--again, a testimony to the incredible professionalism of those who labor and work with dedication in our military medical health care system.

The legislation improves benefits related to the administrative separation from the military due to injury, increasing severance pay for servicemembers with disabilities incurred in a combat zone, and eliminating the requirement that severance pay be deducted from VA disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone-- another remarkable situation which should have been fixed long ago. It requires the Secretary of Defense to immediately implement pilot projects to test improvements to the disability evaluation systems, to fundamentally change and improve those antiquated systems. It requires the Secretary of Defense to inspect and improve medical treatment in residential facilities and to study the accelerated construction of new facilities at the National Medical Center at Bethesda. The current facilities of Walter Reed have served the Nation well, but we can, and must, do better.

This legislation is an important step toward restoring trust for America's wounded and our veterans, but it is not our final destination. Our work also must be informed by the Presidential Commission on Care for America's Wounded, cochaired by one of my personal heroes, Senator Dole, an enduring American hero. This report will be filed in another few weeks, and I am confident we will work to implement the recommendations of that report as quickly as possible.

I am pleased that the Senate Committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs held a joint hearing on the care of the wounded earlier this year. On June 27, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs reported a bill, portions of which will be offered as an amendment to the underlying bill. These add new resources for traumatic brain injury and mental health evaluations provided by the VA and extend the eligibility for care for combat veterans from 2 to 5 years.

I believe additional conversation and legislation are needed to ensure that veterans with service-connected illnesses and disabilities have timely access to quality health care service through the Veterans' Administration. Given the strain on the veterans health system and the limits of our resources, I believe this can best be achieved through partnerships with civilian health care specialists, based on the health care needs of our wounded veterans. I don't think there is anybody in the world who is better qualified and better trained to address direct combat injuries. I do believe there are many areas of health care in America that are better at certain types of illnesses, certain types of mental therapy that is required, and other areas where health care specialists exist. Those health care specialists should be made available to our veterans. I am a fiscal conservative, as everybody knows, but in this area, the care and treatment of wounded warriors and veterans, we cannot retreat, no matter what the cost.

I wish to again thank the distinguished chairman of this committee for his leadership. I again thank Senator Akaka, Senator Craig, and every member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee as well as the Armed Services Committee for our coming together and coming forward with this legislation. I only regret that it was needed.

I repeat the words of President George Washington in 1789, as I have so often during these times:

The willingness with which our young people are likely to

serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly

proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier

wars were treated and appreciated by their country.

Again, I thank all the members of the committee, and I thank Ted and Sara Wade, Jeff and Christy Mittman, Eric Edmondson, Mark Robbins and his parents, and all of our wounded and their families. The solution to your trials requires cooperation among us all--in Congress, within the executive branch, and among veterans in military service organizations. With this amendment, I believe we are on the right path.

Again, I want to add my appreciation for the veterans service organizations--the VFW, the DAV, the AMVETS, the American Legion, and so many veterans organizations that labored day after day, in obscurity but with courage and with dedication on behalf of our veterans. Without them, we would not have received the valuable guidance and information and knowledge they have provided us as they address these challenges every single day.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I would ask my friend, the chairman, if perhaps we might, after the Senator from Washington is recognized, by unanimous consent, go through the managers' amendments following that and then proceed with the debate, or is the Senator from New York also recognized?

For us to go through the package, a maximum of 3 or 4 minutes.

If that is all right, maybe between the two Senators we can do it.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I would not object, for the purposes of planning, I know we have a vote at 4. Does Senator Lincoln have an estimate as to how much time she will take?

Yes. Senator Craig is here. I know of no additional speakers. I think it is legitimate, since the Senator from Massachusetts is on the floor. I would agree that following Senator Craig, Senator Lincoln and then Senator Kerry proceed.

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

Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2154, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2011

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

Mr. President, the amendment, as modified, has been cleared.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2115 to Amendment No. 2019

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2114 to Amendment No. 2019

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2089 to Amendment No. 2019

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2090 to Amendment No. 2019

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2162 to Amendment No. 2019

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, if it is agreeable with Senator Levin, that Senator Stabenow be allowed 10 minutes.

So 3 minutes after 4 o'clock.

Madam President, if I can tell my friend, I think it will only take us about 2 minutes since we are in agreement, and then we can move to wounded warriors, for the benefit of our colleagues.

If the Senator will yield for a question.

It is our intention to set it up so there is at least a side by side offered by Senator Cornyn, and there may be additional side by sides, if necessary. Is that our basic agreement?

If I may respond, it is the intention to make sure there would be a side by side if the procedure, if it comes up----

Madam President, before the Senator from Vermont speaks, I assure the Senator from Texas that there is no intention of depriving him of a side by side; that the intention is to frame the UC such that there is a side by side, but there is a little parliamentary side of it. I hate to take the time of all of our colleagues, but that is the intent and the agreement between the two of us to get it done. I will have the next amendment after the Dorgan amendment, and I will recognize him at that time. Then we will work out the modalities.

Madam President, may I say this is one time I am glad I am not in the majority.

Madam President, I know the chairman is on his way here, and while he is on his way, I would just like to urge all Senators who have amendments to this bill to please get them in. We have approximately 100 pending. Obviously, most of those can be dispensed with without debate and votes, but we really need to stop submitting amendments because there has to be a time where we just have had enough amendments approved. So I would urge my colleagues to get their amendments in tonight--before tomorrow, if they can, but tomorrow at the latest--so that next week we can begin the process of approving or deciding to debate and to vote on various amendments.

Madam President, I note the presence of the distinguished chairman, so I yield the floor.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2160, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2019

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

I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2159, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2019

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would ask the sponsor of the amendment if he would like to begin or does he choose to have me discuss this amendment? I am amenable to either course.

Well then, Mr. President, I will go ahead.

I understand there is 20 minutes equally divided; is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I will yield myself just 4 minutes and then save some of the remaining time.

Mr. President, this amendment calls for a congressionally mandated fence that would surround every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine and every military unit in the Armed Forces. If their days at home don't equal the days deployed, these soldiers, by law, could not be deployed in support of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is quite a restriction.

I have done some research recently, since I heard about this amendment, and it is certainly without precedent in wartime, and we are in wars, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than get into the debate about the length of the war in Iraq again, I think most people appreciate the fact that the war or the conflict in Afghanistan will be with us for a long time. I mention that because I have yet to see a congressional proposal to end our engagement in Afghanistan where we were successful in ousting the Taliban, but, obviously, there are more challenges we have to meet in the future.

In the Defense authorization bill, we have provisions to increase the size of the Marine Corps and the Army, which I hope will alleviate some of the enormous strain that has been placed on our Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty Forces. I understand the deep concern of the Senator from Virginia about this issue. Our Guard and Reserve are being stressed in a way that is unprecedented, probably since World War II, when everybody was called to serve, just about, and I certainly understand the concerns raised here. I share them with Guard members and members of the Reserve all the time.

We have called people back to active duty in an almost unprecedented fashion, so I understand the intent of this amendment. But if we put such a requirement into law in wartime, I think it would be bad congressional micromanagement. It would be a precedent that no President could live with and an expression of distrust in military leaders, particularly of the Secretary

of Defense, Mr. Gates, who promptly established dwell-time policies on assuming office and is doing his utmost to enforce them.

Senator Webb has expressed his belief that this amendment would do no harm. Well, those whom we charge with the responsibilities--both the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff--have indicated that if enacted, the amendment would have immediate adverse effects on their ability to accomplish their military missions.

The Joint Staff told us this amendment would ``eliminate the flexibility of the services to manage and mitigate exceptions to dwell time planning goals'' and that ``future support to IAF/OEF may be severely impacted.''

The Joint Staff went on to say, ``The requirements will result in future capability gaps in combat and combat support forces both in IAF and OEF units.'' For reservists, the requirement will ``exacerbate the stress on the current force, providing sourcing challenges and creating shortfalls.''

The Department of Defense stated, ``In emergency situations, where forces are needed quickly, the waiver process could affect the war fight itself by delaying forces needed in theater.'' And they went on to say, ``The proposed language stipulates minimum periods between deployments in both units and individuals. The requirement to meet both criteria for units and individuals before deployment could severely limit options for sourcing rotations.''

That is the view of the people we entrust with the responsibilities to defend our Nation, and I do not diminish the responsibility of the Congress as well. This amendment could--and according to military planners, would--do harm. And it shouldn't be a surprise.

So the amendment has a Presidential waiver provision, which I am sure will be emphasized in the course of this discussion, but it doesn't make the amendment better. Attempts at using it would only lead to endless delays and bickering about whether deployment ``meets an operational emergency posing a vital threat to national security interests.'' Those kinds of decisions should clearly be made by the President of the United States. That is what the Constitution says when it outlines specifically that the President of the United States shall serve as Commander in Chief.

Now, the Congress, as they have in the past, has the power of the purse, and if we don't like what the President--the Commander in Chief--is doing, then we can cut off those appropriations. Sometimes we have done that, much to our dismay in afterthought. For example, I referred earlier--yesterday--to a decision to cut off any military assistance or any kind of assistance to Cambodia, and we watched helplessly as 3 million people were slaughtered in a genocide of proportions almost unmatched in the 20th century. I say ``almost.'' So I believe this kind of decision should be made by the Commander in Chief.

I wish to assure my colleague from Virginia that I will work with him in every way to get this legislation passed, which increases the size of our Marine Corps and Army, and we should continue, just as quickly as we can, to recruit these brave individuals and to maintain the standards we think are important in order to have this highly qualified All-Volunteer Force.

I would also again point out that there are men and women who want to go back to Iraq. There are men and women who want to serve again in Afghanistan. There are men and women who feel a sense of urgency and a desire to serve. Would the amendment of the Senator from Virginia preclude them from additional service? I don't know.

So I hope we can continue to work together on this issue, and I hope we can turn down this amendment, even though I certainly agree with the sentiments and the concern of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, however the Senator from Michigan wants to handle it--I have 12 minutes remaining. I wish to yield to the Senator from South Carolina for 5 minutes, the Senator from Georgia for 5 minutes, and I will take the remaining 2 minutes. If the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Virginia wants to intervene between those two, that will be fine.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina and, following whatever remarks on the other side, the Senator from Georgia for 5 minutes.

We retain the balance of time, Mr. President. I withhold at this time.

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the remaining time.

Very briefly, I have made my comments about this amendment. America has been engaged in other wars at other times, and we have not put time limitations on the periods that they would be in rotation. I think it is clearly executive branch decisionmaking, which is clearly pointed out in the Constitution.

I just want to add, while my friend from Michigan is on the floor of the Senate, we are probably not going to get cloture on this amendment. Then it will be a decision of the majority leader as to whether we go forward. If there is another amendment that will be brought up, I fully expect to have the same right that has been extended to the minority over the 20 years that I have been here as a Member of Congress; that is, that I be allowed to propose an amendment from our side.

I have managed many bills on the Senate floor. I have never prevented--I have never prevented--an amendment from being proposed. I hope the Senator from Michigan will extend me that same courtesy.

By the way, we now are finding significant criticism about our insistence on the 60 votes in side by sides, something that was a standard procedure when the other side was in the minority. So history clearly indicates that is the way we have been doing business. Whether it is correct or not, and whether it causes gridlock is another subject. But to criticize this side because we are insisting on the same parliamentary procedures as were insisted upon by the other side when they were in the minority, it seems to me, is a bit inconsistent.

I hope I would be able to, if the Webb amendment is disposed of, propose an amendment from my side as has been the custom all of the years that I have been here; otherwise, I think we may spend some time in a parliamentary situation. I am not ready to give up that right of the minority.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, perhaps the Senator from Connecticut could have his amendment pending, and then the Senator from Massachusetts could speak in morning business. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, for planning purposes--and I know he is traditionally and characteristically brief-- I wonder how long he might be.

Mr. President, in deference to the age and seniority of the Senator from Massachusetts, I am more than happy to agree that after Senator Lieberman proposes his amendment, the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized and then we return to debate on the Lieberman amendment, if that is agreeable to my friend from Michigan. If so, I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. The amendment puts Iran on notice that we in the Congress are aware of actions taken by Tehran that have resulted in the deaths of U.S. service personnel. We are aware of it, and we must do everything we can to stop it as quickly as possible.

While my colleagues and I may have legitimate differences over our policy in Iraq, we stand firmly united against those individuals and regimes that would seek to harm our troops. For some time now, American diplomats and military officers have suspected that key Iranian Government elements are actively engaged in supporting individuals and groups seeking to destabilize the Iraqi Government and who are deliberately targeting American troops for attack. There is a body of evidence, a body of reporting on Iranian material support to Shia militias, reports that suggest that Iranian support for the most lethal of the improvised explosive devices and for armor-piercing explosively formed projectiles. Together, these weapons account for a high percentage of American casualties in Iraq.

But the evidence of Iranian activity in Iraq does not end there. In order to increase its influence in Iraq, bleed the United States and disrupt our efforts in Iraq, Iran has engaged in numerous specific acts. A few of the publicly available reports include:

In February of this year, our military confirmed that at least 170 members of the U.S. Armed Forces have

been killed and at least 620 wounded by weapons tied to Iran.

On May 27, then-MG William Caldwell, spokesperson for the Multi- National Force in Iraq, said:

What we do know is that the Iranian intelligence services,

the Qods Force, is in fact training, equipping, and funding

Shia groups . . . both in Iraq and in Iran. . . . We have in

detention now, people that we have captured that, in fact,

are Sunni extremist-related that have, in fact, received both

some funding and training from the Iranian intelligence

services, the Qods Force.

On April 26, General Petraeus stated that the Qazali network, a network directly connected to the Iranian Quds Force, was responsible for the sophisticated attack against the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Iraq, which resulted in the murder of five American soldiers, four of whom were first abducted.

Last week Brigadier General Bergner, current spokesman for Multi- National Force Iraq, stated the following:

The Iranian Quds Force is using Lebanese Hezbollah

essentially as a proxy, as a surrogate in Iraq.

Coalition forces have captured Ali Musa Daqdaq, whom the

U.S. believes to be a 24-year veteran of Lebanese Hezbollah

involved in the training of Iraqi extremists in Iraq and

Iran.

The Iranian Quds Force operates three camps near Tehran

where it trains Iraqi extremists in cooperation with Lebanese

Hezbollah. The Quds Force, along with Hezbollah instructors,

train approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time, sending them

back to Iraq organized into these special groups. They are

being taught how to use EFPs, mortars, rockets, as well as

intelligence, sniper, and kidnapping operations.

Iraqi extremists receive between $750,000 and $3 million

every month from Iranian sources.

. . . our intelligence reveals that senior leadership in

Iran is aware of this activity and that it would be hard to

imagine that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of

Iran, is unaware of it.

Let me be clear. This amendment is not a call for war. However, it is a clear message that America stands by our troops and our interests in Iraq and that all Americans are united against those who would do them harm.

I ask my colleagues to join us in sending this message. If the Government of Iran wishes to prevent further international isolation and increased tension with the United States, it must take immediate action to end all training, arming, equipping, funding, advising, and any other forms of support for those who are destabilizing Iraq and killing American troops. That is about as simple as it gets. I would hope that however divided we may be on other questions of policy, we can all agree on that.

As my friend from Connecticut says, this amendment is a quite commonsense, common-ground proposal that would send a clear message on behalf of America, our interests, and those who risk everything to protect it.

I remind my colleagues of several quotes made by various Iranian leaders, including the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who said:

Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day be

destroyed.

He said on another occasion:

Israel is a rotten dry tree that will be annihilated in one

storm.

Another time he said:

The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of

destiny. Israel must be wiped off the map.

Those are not the words of the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Michigan, any one of our enemies, but the elected leader of the State of Iran, who has said on numerous occasions that Israel must be wiped off the map.

So it is not just what the Iranian Government is doing in Iraq, it is the continued threat to the State of Israel. The Iranians, along with the Syrians, continue to arm Hezbollah. They are in the process of replacing the rockets expended in the battle in southern Lebanon as a result of the attack of Hezbollah on Israeli forces, the capture of Israeli servicemen. It is clear that the United Nation's Security Council resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is not in any way, sense, or form being enforced. In fact, Hezbollah is being rearmed rather than disarmed.

There is no doubt that the Iranian Government is attempting to realize an age-old dream of Persian influence and superiority in the Middle East. This is a real and serious threat.

I haven't even talked about the nuclear weapons development. It is well known to most of my colleagues here--all of them, as a matter of fact. As they continue to progress down the path to acquisition of a nuclear weapon, I am not concerned--I am concerned, but I am not as concerned about the fact that Iran develops a nuclear weapon and puts it on a missile aimed at Israel. I am far more concerned about the Iranians acquiring a nuclear weapon and handing it over to one of the terrorist organizations with which they have intimate and close ties.

This is a great threat in the region. Even if we are out of Iraq, let's suppose the worst-case scenario happens. I think one of the greatest threats to stability in the region is the insertion of Iran in a broad variety of ways in Iraq, beginning with southern Iraq, and their support of continued organizations that practice terror in the region.

I also think that obviously you would have some kind of Sunni involvement sponsored by the Saudis and you would have a number of other catastrophic situations, including the Turks not being able to withstand an independent Kurdish state. All of those are subjects for a debate for another day and discussion.

But the threat Iran presents, not just to Iraq, not just to the region, but peace in the world, is real. It is extremely urgent that we address it. If we fail to do so, as we have failed to address threats of terrorism in various shapes and forms in the past, we will pay a very heavy price. That is why I am very pleased to support the amendment of my friend from Connecticut.

Before I yield, could I also say I think that the Senator from Michigan and I and the Senator from Connecticut would be glad to enter into a time for a vote on this amendment at his convenience and that of the leadership's convenience.

I am very appreciative of the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina. His eloquence is both compelling and informative.

I thank my friend from Connecticut for his amendment.

Mr. President, there has been printed in the Record an article by Senator Lieberman of Friday July 6, 2007, that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

I hope many of my colleagues will find the time to read this piece by Senator Lieberman.

My friends from South Carolina and from Connecticut have made the arguments on behalf of the present strategy. One of the aspects of this debate we are in will center to some degree around Iranian influence in Iraq and the need for, or not, face-to-face talks with Iran. Let me make it clear in the beginning that I think America should be ready to talk to anybody at any time under any circumstances as long as somehow it isn't injurious to America's prestige or cause. But I think those who would come to this floor and argue about the need for face-to-face talks with the Iranians and how somehow that is the Rosetta Stone or nirvana--something that all we need to do is sit down and talk face to face with the Iranians--should be aware of the recent experience we have had with the Iranians. There were talks between Washington and Tehran last month in Baghdad, and the subject was security issues. Many of us were aware of those.

I quote the chief military spokesman, BG Kevin Bergner:

There absolutely is evidence of Iranian operatives holding

weapons, training fighters, providing resources, helping plan

operations, resourcing secret cells that is destabilizing

Iraq.

We would like very much to see some action on their part to

reduce the level of effort and help contribute to Iraq's

security. We have not seen it yet.

Obviously, we know that tensions between the United States and Iran are very high, especially after the United States seized five Iranians earlier this year in northern Iraq for which there was clear and compelling evidence they were helping the insurgents. We also know Iran has five U.S. Iranian citizens held on ``security-related charges,'' a gross violation of human rights. I am surprised there is not more outrage in the United States over this basic kidnapping of American citizens.

The important part of this discussion is that our Ambassador to Iraq, Mr. Ryan Crocker, met with his Iranian counterpart last month in Baghdad. I know I share the view of most people who have had interface with Ambassador Crocker that he is one of the finest who has ever served in the Foreign Service as a diplomat and representative of the United States in all parts of the Middle East. One of the issues Ambassador Crocker raised was the type of roadside bomb which cuts through armor and is most lethal that is being supplied by the Iranians. Tehran's response last week was that they would study a request from Baghdad for a second meeting but warned the decision may take weeks.

Our No. 2 U.S. diplomat, Daniel Speckhard, said:

We do not yet have another meeting scheduled for that

dialogue with Iraq and Iran.

He said the first meeting produced general assurances that Tehran had a common interest in seeing a stable Iraq on its border, but these words had not been matched by deeds.

In other words, we have had a meeting with the Iranians. We have had various representations and representatives approach the Iranians on this issue. We have tried very hard and we will continue to try very hard to convince the Iranians that chaos in Iraq is not in their interest. I am not talking about U.S. interest but their interest. But it seems, as Daniel Speckhard said, what we have seen during the first meeting is, from our perspective, a sense that their actions were out of line with their stated goals and objectives.

Relations between the two countries obviously are being strained by Iran's nuclear program, which, in the minds of most experts, is by no means peaceful.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, and this will be part of one of the amendments that is proposed, the United States should engage in face-to-face talks with the Iranians. That is fine. As I say, it is fine with me as long as it doesn't undermine U.S. prestige and enhance the prestige of a nation that continues to say things such as:

Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the

Islamic nation's fury.

Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from

the fury of regional nations.

Israel is a tyrannical regime that one day will be

destroyed.

We are supposed to sit down in face-to-face negotiations with a government

whose President said, concerning the Holocaust:

They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and

place this above God, religions and the prophets.

The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where

the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust

as blackmail and justification for killing children and women

and making innocent people homeless.

That is the rhetoric of the Government of Iran.

I hope we can convince them that an al-Qaida-significant presence in Iraq and increased chaos in the region is not in Iran's long-term interests because we need them. We need them to join with us in trying to bring about some kind of stability in the region. I hope that will happen.

I note the presence of the deputy Democratic leader on the floor. As I have discussed with the Senator from Michigan, the distinguished chairman, we are prepared to vote at whatever the leader's convenience is. It is my understanding--if I could have the attention of the Senator from Michigan--that after that, according to our conversation--

That is quite all right--that there would be a pending Hagel amendment and then a discussion of an amendment by Senators Salazar and Alexander, and then there would be made in order probably a Kyl amendment from this side, in keeping with the back and forth of amendments, obviously, depending on the good will and agreement of the leadership.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, could I ask the indulgence of the Senator from Michigan? Perhaps an hour for Senators Salazar and Alexander and a half hour at the same time, so perhaps we could have a back and forth and use the hour and a half in its entirety, if that would be agreeable.

Sure. Could I respond?

Mr. President, I believe that this hour they asked for is in addition to the discussion of the regular amendment when it comes up on the floor sometime in the next--

Whenever it comes up. They were seeking unanimous consent just to discuss for an hour the merits of their amendment. I had said, well, we should try to also have a half hour and a time limit. Obviously, all of this is in keeping with the wishes of the majority. The Senator from Michigan and I are trying to--

Mr. President, why don't we do this: have an hour--and I am sure we will not use it--an hour each.

Mr. President, maybe we could let Senator Smith proceed and then----

Mr. President, could I just ask, is it the intention of the Senator from Michigan to call for a vote immediately after Senator Smith's 10 minutes, to alert all Members?

Whatever the Senator says.

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

It is my understanding that time is being equally taken from both sides during the quorum call; is that correct?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, that is correct.

Reserving the right to object, did the distinguished chairman mean to also announce that we intend to bring up the wounded warriors amendment tomorrow?

Mr. President, just reserving the right to object to clarify one more time, we intend to debate and vote on Graham and Hagel side by side. Then I would offer an amendment that would be considered. Following that, I think, is when the Senator from Michigan, along with I think 99 others, would be offering the wounded warriors amendment on behalf of our veterans.

That is my understanding.

Yes. I think it would be decided case by case and probably not by me.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, if I could just add to that, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, was particularly interested in engaging in that discussion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, might be recognized for such time as he may consume.

And I would like to thank the Senator from Hawaii for his patience and his courtesy.

Mr. President, again, I would like to thank my old friend from Hawaii for his patience so that, as the Republican ranking member of the committee, I may make a statement about the bill itself and about the situation in Iraq. I thank him for his courtesy, and I will try not to take too long a period of time. So I thank my old friend from Hawaii.

Mr. President, we have reached another moment of importance this week in debating the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill. We will help set the course of the Nation's security policy and influence our participation in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of the debate, as we all know, will be about Iraq, and before I discuss that and my recent visit, I would note that many provisions in this bill constitute a good defense policy and will strengthen the ability of our country to defend itself.

Under the leadership of my good friend from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, I think we have crafted an excellent piece of legislation. I think a testament to his leadership is that the committee voted unanimously to report the bill, and it fully funds the President's $648 billion defense budget request. It provides necessary measures to try to bring under control waste, fraud, and abuse in defense procurement, and, frankly, it makes Members more accountable for their spending in the earmark process.

Again, I thank Senator Levin, the subcommittee chairs, and all the committee members for their work in bringing this issue to the floor.

Very briefly, we have authorized a 3.5-percent, across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. We have increased Army and Marine end strength to 525,400 and 189,000, respectively. The committee also approved $2.7 billion for items on the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirement list, including $775 million for reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, $207 million for aviation survivability equipment, $102 million for combat training centers and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment, night vision devices, and machine guns.

The bill also authorizes $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, known as MRAP vehicles, for all of the Services' known requirements.

The committee has come up with the money to support our troops, and I have no doubt the full Senate will follow step.

Money and policy statements are not all that is required at this moment in our national history. Courage is required--courage, not the great courage exhibited by the brave men and women fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a smaller measure: the courage necessary to put our country's interests before every personal or political consideration.

In this light, I would like to discuss America's involvement in Iraq, and finally I would like to make several points.

Final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus's counterinsurgency tactics arrived just several weeks ago. Last week I had the opportunity to visit with troops in theater. From what I saw and heard while there, I believe our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making progress in a number of areas. There are other areas where they are not. I would like to outline some of their efforts, not to argue that these areas have suddenly become safe--they have not; I want to emphasize the areas have not become safe--but to illustrate the progress our military has achieved under General Petraeus's new strategy.

Last year Anbar Province was believed to be lost to al-Qaida. On the map we see that U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaned out al-Qaida fighters from Ramadi and other areas of western Anbar. Tribal sheiks broke with the terrorists and joined the coalition side. It is a fact that some 16 out of the 24 sheiks in the Sunni area of Anbar Province have now joined with U.S. forces in their commitment to destroy al-Qaida in Anbar Province.

Ramadi, months ago, was Iraq's most dangerous city. It is now one of its safest. At considerable political risk, I point out that I visited, with Senator Graham, downtown Ramadi where the shopping areas were open. I did not visit without protection or without security forces with me. But the fact is, a short time ago it was one of the most dangerous cities in all of Iraq. Attacks are down from 30 to 35 a day in February to zero on most days now.

In Fallujah, Iraqi police have established numerous stations and have divided the city into gated districts. The violence has declined and local intelligence tips have proliferated. Throughout Anbar Province, thousands of young men are signing up for the police and Army, and the locals are taking the fight to al-Qaida. All 18 major tribes in the province are now onboard with the security plan. A year from now, the Iraqi Army and police could have total control of security in Ramadi, allowing American forces to safely draw down.

South of Baghdad, operation Phantom Thunder is intended to stop insurgents present in the Baghdad belts from originating attacks in the capital itself. A brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, which I visited, is operating in Baghdad belts that have been havens for al- Qaida. All soldiers in the brigade are living forward. That means they are in outposts away from the headquarters 24-7, living, working, and fighting alongside Iraqi military. Commanders report that the local sheiks

are increasingly siding with the coalition against al-Qaida.

Southeast of Baghdad, the military is targeting al-Qaida in safe havens they maintain along the Tigris River. In Baghdad itself, the military, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, continues to establish joint security stations and deploy throughout the city. These efforts have produced some positive results. Sectarian violence has fallen. Since January, the total number of car bombings and suicide attacks declined. In May and June, the number of locals coming forward with intelligence tips has risen.

Make no mistake, violence in Baghdad remains at unacceptably high levels, suicide bombers and other threats pose formidable challenges, and other difficulties abound. Nevertheless, there appears to be overall movement in the right direction.

I have no doubt how difficult suicide bombers are to counter. Ask the Israelis. They literally had to seal their borders with Gaza and the West Bank because of the way people who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to take the lives of others are able to get through and do these horrendous acts that we are exposed to quite often on our television screens and in our newspapers in America.

In Diyala Province, Iraqi and American troops have surged and are fighting to deny al-Qaida sanctuary in the city of Baqubah. For the first time since the war began, Americans showed up in force and did not quickly withdraw from the area. In response, locals have formed a new alliance with the coalition to counter al-Qaida.

Why are some of these people now turning against al-Qaida? One reason is the extreme cruelty that is practiced by al-Qaida on a routine basis, which has caused many people to reject that kind of extreme violence and cruelty inflicted on the local people. Diyala, which was the center of Abu Mus' Ab al-Zarqawi's caliphate, finally has the chance to turn aside the forces of extremism.

I offer these observations not to present a rosy scenario of the challenges we continue to face in Iraq. As last weekend's horrific bombing indicates so graphically, the threats to Iraqi stability have not gone away, nor are they likely to go away in the near future when our brave men and women in Iraq will continue to face great challenges.

What I do believe is, while the mission to bring a degree of security to Iraq and to Baghdad and its environs in particular in order to establish the necessary preconditions for political and economic progress--while that mission is still in its early stages, the progress our military has made should encourage us. It is also clear the overall strategy that General Petraeus has put into place, a traditional counterinsurgency tactic that emphasizes protecting a population and which gets our troops off of the bases and into the areas they are trying to protect--that this strategy is the correct one.

Some of my colleagues argue that we should return troops to the forward operating bases and confine their activities to training and targeted counterterrorism operations. That is precisely what we did for 3\1/2\ years, and the situation in Iraq got worse. Over 3\1/2\ years we had our troops from operating bases going out--search and destroy as we used to call it during the Vietnam war--and going back to their bases. That was a failed strategy from the beginning. I am surprised that any of my colleagues would advocate a return to the failed Rumsfeld-Casey strategy.

No one can be certain whether this new strategy, which remains in the early stages, can bring about greater stability. We can be sure, should the Senate seek to legislate an end to this strategy as it is just beginning, then we will fail for certain.

Now that the military effort in Iraq is showing some signs of progress, the space is opening for political progress. Yet rather than seizing the opportunity, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not functioning as it must. I repeat, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not functioning as it must. We see little evidence of reconciliation and little progress toward meeting the benchmarks laid out by the President. The Iraqi Government can function. The question is whether it will.

To encourage political progress, I believe we can find wisdom in several suggestions put forward recently by Henry Kissinger. Intensified negotiations by the Iraqi parties could limit violence, promote reconciliation, and put the political system on a more stable footing. We should promote dialog between the Iraqi Government and its Sunni Arab neighbors, specifically Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, in order to build broader international acceptance for the Iraqi central government in exchange for that government meeting specific obligations with respect to the protection and political participation of the Sunni minority. We should begin a broader effort to establish a basis for aid and even peacekeeping efforts by the international community, keyed to political progress in Iraq.

Taking such steps, we must recognize that no lasting political settlement can grow out of the U.S. withdrawal. On the contrary, a withdrawal must grow out of a political solution, a solution made possible by the imposition of security by coalition and Iraqi forces.

Secretary Kissinger is correct when he says ``precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster,'' one that ``would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia,'' produce greater violence among Iraqi factions, and embolden radical Islamists around the world.

The war between Iraqi factions would intensify. The

demonstration of American impotence would embolden radical

Islamism and further radicalize its disciples from Indonesia

and India to the suburbs of European capitals . . .

What America and the world need is not unilateral

withdrawal but a vision by the Bush administration of a

sustainable political end to the conflict.

As I said before, withdrawals must grow out of a political solution, not the other way around.

The Shias and the Sunnis and the Kurds:

They need the buttress of a diplomatic process that could

provide international support for carrying out any internal

agreements reached or to contain conflict if the internal

parties cannot agree and Iraq breaks up . . .

The American goal should be an international agreement

regarding the international status of Iraq. It would test

whether Iraq's neighbors as well as some more distant

countries are prepared to translate general concepts into

converging policies. It would provide a legal and political

framework to resist violations. These are the meaningful

benchmarks against which to test American withdrawals.

He goes on to point out:

Turkey has repeatedly emphasized it would resist a breakup

by force because of the radicalizing impact a Kurdish State

could have on Turkey's large Kurdish population. But this

would bring Turkey into unwanted conflict with the United

States and open a Pandora's box of other interventions.

Saudi Arabia and Jordan dread Shiite domination of Iraq,

especially if the Baghdad regime threatens to become a

satellite of Iran. The various Gulf Sheikdoms, the largest of

which is Kuwait, find themselves in an even more threatened

position.

Syria's attitudes are likely to be more ambivalent. Its

ties to Iran represent both a claim to status and a looming

vulnerability . . .

Given a wise and determined American diplomacy, even Iran

may be brought to conclude that the risks of continued

turmoil outweigh the temptations before it.

He goes on to talk about a multilateral framework.

A forum for diplomacy already exists in the foreign

ministers' conference that met recently at Sharm el-Sheikh,

Egypt. . . . It is in the United States' interests to turn

the conference into a working enterprise under strong, if

discrete, American leadership.

He goes on to say:

Neither the international system nor American public

opinion will accept as a permanent arrangement, an American

enclave maintained exclusively by American military power in

so volatile a region.

I believe Secretary Kissinger is correct. I believe he is correct when he bases the premise that precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster.

Many of my colleagues would like to believe that should any of the various amendments forcing withdrawal 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, more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. Our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already the terrorists are emboldened,

excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq but is rather debating when we should lose.

Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's deputy chief, said the United States is merely delaying our ``inevitable'' defeat in Iraq and that: ``The Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps toward victory.''

If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. The movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory. We saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al-Qaida following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe anything is possible, history is on their side, and they can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over.

Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Mus'ab al- Zarqawi before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: Establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel; none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is, Are we?

Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority would turn Iraq into a failed state and a terrorist sanctuary in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once before. It cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with impunity. We know that today there are terrorists in Iraq who are planning attacks against Americans. I do not think we should make this mistake twice.

Brent Scowcroft, whom we also know was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in the first place, has 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.

One of my great heroes and role models and a person whom I have had the great honor of getting to know recently is Natan Sharansky, a man of inestimable courage and knowledge. He recently had a piece that ran Sunday in the Washington Post. The title of his piece is: ``Leave Iraq, Embrace for a Bigger Bloodbath.''

In his statement, he talks about:

The truth is that in totalitarian regimes, there are no

human rights. Period. The media do not criticize the

government. Parliaments do not check executive power. Courts

do not uphold due process. And human rights groups do not

file reports.

He talks about the moral divide that separates societies in which people are slaves, from societies in which people are free.

``Some human rights groups undermine the very cause they claim to champion,'' he says.

Consider one 2005 Amnesty International report on Iraq. It

notes that in the lawless climate of the first months after

Hussein's overthrow, reports of kidnappings, rapes and

killings of women and girls by criminal gangs rose. Iraqi

officers at a police station in Baghdad said in June 2003

that the number of reported rapes was ``substantially higher

than before the war.''

The implication was that human rights may not really be

improving in post-Hussein Iraq. But the organization ignored

the possibility that reports of rape at police stations may

have increased for the simple reason that under Hussein it

was the regime--which includes the police--that was doing the

raping.

He goes on to say:

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

bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by

comparison.

I am quoting from Natan Sharansky.

Without U.S. troops in place to quell some of the violence,

Iranian-backed Shiite militias would dramatically increase

their attacks on Sunnis; Sunni militias, backed by the Saudis

or others, would retaliate in kind, drawing more and more of

Iraq into a vicious cycle of violence. If Iraq descended into

full-blown civil war, the chaos could trigger similar clashes

throughout the region as Sunni-Shiite tensions spill across

Iraq's borders. The death toll and the displacement civilians

would climb exponentially.

He says:

Perhaps the greatest irony of the political debate over

Iraq is that many of Bush's critics, who accused his

administration of going blindly to war without considering

what would happen once Hussein's regime was toppled, now

blindly support a policy of withdrawing from Iraq without

considering what might follow.

In this respect, the debate over Iraq is beginning to look

a lot like the debate about the Vietnam War in the 1960s and

1970s. Then, too, the argument in the United States focused

primarily on whether U.S. forces should pull out. But many

who supported that withdrawal in the name of human rights did

not foresee the calamity that followed, which included

genocide in Cambodia, tens of thousands slaughtered in

Vietnam by the North Vietnamese and the tragedy of hundreds

of thousands of ``boat people.''

Mr. Sharansky lives in the neighborhood. Mr. Sharansky understands the meaning of the word ``freedom.'' Mr. Sharansky understands the meaning of the word ``sacrifice.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Kissinger and Sharansky articles.

Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we will 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.

Iran will comfortably step into the power vacuum left by a U.S. withdrawal, and such an aggrandizement of fundamentalist power has great potential to spark greater Sunni-Shia conflict across the region.

Leaving prematurely would induce Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Egypt and Israel, Turkey and others, to feel their own security eroding and may well induce them to act in ways that prompt wider instability. The potential for genocide, wider war, spiralling oil prices, and the perception of strategic American defeat is real.

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.

General Petraeus and his commanders believe they have a strategy that can, over time, lead to success in Iraq. General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come to Washington in September to report on the status of their efforts and those of the Iraqis. They ask two things of us: the time necessary to see whether their efforts can succeed and the political courage to support them in their work. I believe we should give them both.

I know that Senators are tired of this war, tired of the mounting death toll, tired of the many mistakes we have made in this war and the great effort it requires to reverse them, tired of the war's politicization and the degree to which it has become embroiled in partisan struggles and election strategies. I understand this fatigue. Yet I maintain that we, as elected leaders with a duty to our people and the security of their Nation, cannot let fatigue dictate our policies.

The soldiers I met last week have no illusions about the sacrifices necessary to achieve their mission. On July 4, I had the great privilege to be present as 588 troops reenlisted in the military and another 161 were naturalized as U.S. citizens. Tragically, two of those who were scheduled to be naturalized as U.S. citizens were killed very shortly before the ceremony.

Those men and women taking the oaths of enlistment and citizenship in the center of Saddam's al Faw Palace, they understand the many hardships made in our name. They have completed tour after tour away from their families, risking everything, everything for the security of this country. They do so because they understand the circumstances that, however great the costs of this war, the costs are immeasurably greater still if we abandon it prematurely. All they ask is that we support them in their noble mission.

I wish we had planned to fight this war correctly the first time. But we can no more turn back the clock to 2003 than we can wish away the consequences of defeat by imposing some artificial deadline for withdrawal. Last week in Iraq, I met the bravest men and women our country has to offer, and not one of them told me it was time to go or that the cause is lost.

They are frustrated with the Iraqi Government's lack of progress. They are buffeted by the winds of partisanship in Washington, talking today of surges and tomorrow of withdrawal, voting to confirm General Petraeus and then voting for a course that guarantees defeat. But in the end, they know the war in Iraq is part of a larger struggle, a war of moderation and stability against the forces of violence and extremism.

They recognize that if we simply pack up and leave, the war does not end--it merely gets harder.

Finally, I would like to give a couple of quotes. General Lynch, who is the third ID commander of the U.S. forces, says:

Pulling out before the mission was accomplished would be a

mess. We find the enemy regaining ground, reestablishing

sanctuaries, building more IEDs and the violence would

escalate.

GEN Anthony Zinni, one of my particular heroes, who opposed the war in Iraq, said:

. . . that we cannot simply pull out of Iraq, as much as we

may want to. The consequences of a destabilized and chaotic

Iraq, sitting in the center of a critical region of the

world, could have catastrophic implications. . . .There is no

short-term solution. It will take years to stabilize Iraq.

How many? I believe at least five to seven.

In the Baker Hamilton report, there is a lot of selective quoting. But I would like to point out that they said:

Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for

catastrophe in the role and the commitments of the United

States in initiating events that have led to the current

situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States

to abandon the country through a precipitous withdrawal of

troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq

would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and

further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of

adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results

would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering,

regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy.

Al-Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.

If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range

consequences could eventually require the United States to

return.

That is page 30 of the Iraq Study Group report.

Finally, I understand, I believe very well, how difficult this issue is for many of our Members. I know the sorrow and the frustration that they and their constituents feel. If I knew a great option as to how we could preserve our Nation's security and withdraw and stop the unfortunate casualties that are incurred by these brave young people, I would embrace it tomorrow.

Part of this debate is going to be proposals that people have made about how we can best leave. I intend to engage in vigorous discussion and debate. I would like to again begin this debate by pointing out I respect the views of my colleagues on this issue.

I understand their frustration. I intend to be respectful of their views, and I hope we can have a debate and discussion on this issue, as we consider various amendments, that will better inform the American people of both points of view. I hope over time somehow we can find a way to come together in this body and in this Nation because this war has divided this Nation in the most terrible way.

I saw it once before. I saw it once before, a long time ago, and I saw a defeated military, and I saw how long it took a military that was defeated to recover. I saw a divided nation beset by assassinations and riots and a breakdown in a civil society. That is why we need, in my view, to try to come together--and I do not know how we do that-- beginning with respecting each other's views so we can come together and hopefully end the tragedy of Iraq and at the same time ensure America's security.

I will be saying a lot more on this issue as we continue the debate. I say again, I respect the views of my colleagues. Then, finally, I again pay my compliments to the distinguished chairman of the committee, who put together, as is his wont, a bipartisan package that will ensure our Nation's security in the future, as exemplified again by a unanimous vote of the committee in reporting out the Defense authorization bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I certainly appreciate the passion of the Senator from California and her concern for the men and women serving in the military and those who have sacrificed a great deal already. The fact is, according to Lee Hamilton and Henry Kissinger, General Zinni, and according to literally almost every--not all-- respected national security expert in this country, it is acknowledged that we will have a lot more casualties.

The Senator's concern is emotional and well-founded and very moving. I am also moved by the fact that Henry Kissinger and Lee Hamilton say Congress should drop fixed deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. As Commander in Chief, the President needs flexibility on troop withdrawals. He will accept no bill that has a timeline or a fixed date for withdrawal. Lee Hamilton says:

The American people have the war in Iraq figured out. They

know American troops cannot settle Iraq's sectarian conflict,

and they want to withdraw responsibly. They do not want a

messy or sudden withdrawal to prompt wider sectarian strife

and an escalating humanitarian disaster.

To some degree, I have seen this movie before. I remember when the debate was going on on the floor of the Senate on our withdrawal from Cambodia on December 15, 1970. Mr. Gravel, now one of the candidates for President of the United States, said:

We come back to the argument of protecting American forces.

It is simple. Take the forces out and we do not have any

problem. It is simple. Do not get into Cambodia. Do not get

involved. Then we do not get into anything.

Yes, there was an argument on the floor of the Senate about withdrawal. There was an argument that prohibited the United States from being involved in Cambodia. Three million people were slaughtered--one of the great acts of genocide in modern history. Yes, we cared about American casualties after Vietnam and we withdrew. The North Vietnamese attacked and millions of people got on boats, thousands were killed in reeducation camps, and thousands were executed. I have seen this movie before. I have seen this movie before from the liberal left in America, who share no responsibility for what happened in Cambodia when we said, no, as I quote Senator Gravel:

We come back to the argument of protecting American forces.

It is simple. Take the forces out and we do not have any

problem. It is simple. Do not get into Cambodia. Do not get

involved. Then we do not get into anything.

I would like to finish my comments, and then I will be glad to yield to the Senator from California.

Continuing to quote Senator Gravel:

What would happen if Cambodia fell tomorrow? It may well

fall. . . . Obviously, it would become communistic. We would

have some gnashing of teeth, but life would go on. We would

have our traffic jams and everything else.

There were no traffic jams in Phnom Penh, Madam President, not a one. In fact, all of the people were killed or told to walk out of the city.

Life would go on. Basically, that would increase the

casualties of Americans in South Vietnam. That would be the

difference, except the American people are going to get up

and say, ``We do not want Americans getting killed at that

rate.''

. . . it means we are going to put more money in, and if

there is a danger that Cambodia will be overrun 6 months from

now, we would have to escalate to the next higher step, and

they will devise some way of getting American troops in

there. Or they would go the mercenary route until they

butcher enough of those people.

Interesting.

This, to my mind, is wrong, and adds nothing to our

security. Supposing South Vietnam fell, and became totally

Communist tomorrow, and then Cambodia fell and became totally

Communist; would that appreciably change the life of my

colleague from Kansas? Would that change his life?

The debate goes on and on. It is very worthwhile reviewing the debate that went on about Cambodia and Vietnam, not to mention, as I mentioned earlier, the impact of losing a war on America, our military, and others.

The Senator from California and I am sure the Senator from Delaware will speak very movingly about the strain on the families of the men and women and the strain on our troops.

By the way, we do in this authorization bill before us increase the size of the Marine Corps and the Army, and we need to increase it even more because of the challenges around the world--something that some of us have sought to achieve for a long period of time.

But the fact is, when you lose a war, the consequences of failure are far, far more severe on the military than the strain that is put on the military when they are fighting. It is a fact. It is a fact of military history. It is a fact of the war that we lost in Vietnam, which took us well over a decade to restore any kind of efficiency in our military.

I will be glad to yield to the Senator from California.

I ask for the regular order.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for that thoughtful question. The fact is, I do read the polls, and if the Senator from California had paid attention to my opening statement, she would have known that I made it very clear that I understand the frustration and sorrow of the American people. I also know a lot of us are not driven by polls. A lot of us are driven by principle, and a lot of us do what we think is right no matter what the polls say.

So I appreciate the concern of the Senator from California about whether I read the polls. I appreciate that greatly. But I do know also that when you send a signal, and I appreciate the Senator's concern--I was talking about the liberal left addressing the war in Cambodia, is what I was speaking of. The record is clear, and I will be glad to provide other quotes of a similar nature. But I do also know that those of us who study history, those of us who spend time in Iraq, those of us who spend time with various leaders, such as General Zinni, such as General Scowcroft, such as Secretary of State Baker, such as many others, we all know what the consequences of a date for withdrawal will be. And it isn't my opinion alone. It is shared by a broad variety of national security experts in this field.

I also point out that it does have an effect on the troops in the field when they see effort after effort after effort to withdraw, to force them to be withdrawn and, obviously, a failure of their mission.

I welcome this debate, as I said earlier. I think it is important to inform the American people. I think it is important to have a respectful exchange of views. And I will continue to respect the views of the Senator from California, but I will tell her that I have seen this movie before, and I have seen what happens when we have a defeated military and we have people who assure us that a withdrawal is without consequences.

I believe, as Henry Kissinger as recently as a few days ago said:

. . . precipitate withdrawal [from Iraq] would produce a

disaster. It would not end the war but shift it to other

areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The war

between the Iraqi functions would intensify. The

demonstration of American impotence would embolden radical

Islamism and further radicalize its disciples from Indonesia

and India to the suburbs of European capitals.

Natan Sharansky says the same thing. A person who knows about oppression, who knows about freedom, who served as a beacon to me and a hero in my entire life says:

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

bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by

comparison.

All of these are statements by people for whom I have the greatest respect. I hope we will heed some of their admonitions.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to seek recognition, but I see the assistant majority leader is up, and I will be glad to wait on him.

I paid attention to the statement of the Senator from Illinois, as well as that of the Senator from Nevada. We may be approaching--not a historic moment in the history of the Senate but certainly one worthy of note; that is, according to my staff, that is not always accurate but is well meaning, we are about, maybe, at least 26 years since we have not had a Defense authorization bill passed by this body. Clearly from this beginning it appears, as on most other issues that have come before this body recently, we will be gridlocked.

Cloture motions will be filed. Votes will be taken. Time passes and, unfortunately, during that period of time, the men and women who are serving in our military will be without their pay increase. They will be without the increase in numbers that are called for in this bill, from 512,000 in the Army to 525,000; from 180,000 in the Marines to 189,000.

The best way, probably, to relieve the stress on the men and women in the military and the overdeployment that, unfortunately, we all regret they have had to bear, their unfair share of sacrifice in defense of this Nation and its security, is to increase the size of the military. That is in this bill.

Frankly, the reason we arrived at these numbers is it is just about as many as can be recruited additionally; otherwise, I think you would see additional numbers.

Instead of the 3.5-percent pay increase, instead of increasing size in the Army and Marine Corps, which we all know is badly needed, some of us, including my friend from Michigan, have known for many years how badly it was needed. One of the many mistakes made by the previous Secretary of Defense was not to call for a dramatic increase in the size of our Marine Corps and Army, for which our military families have paid a very heavy price.

Here we are, gridlocked in a battle whether we are going to have 60 votes and whether we are going to have to file a cloture motion which will ripen after a couple of days and all the arcane things that very few Americans understand. It took me a number of years to finally comprehend some of the procedures around here.

So we are, again, going to probably maintain that historic low in approval that was recently, in a recent Gallop Poll that has been taken for many years--I have forgotten the number now. I think it was in the teens as the approval rating of the Congress on the part of the American people.

Anybody who just watched the proceedings that went on and the exchanges between the two leaders make that disapproval rating far more understandable. The average citizen watching these debates really doesn't understand why we don't just go ahead and take care of the men and women in the military, to give them the arms and ammunition they need, to give them the much needed equipment we have talked about on this list--the $2.7 billion items on the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirements list, things like the $4.1 billion for the MRAP, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. We all know how bad the situation is, as far as IEDs are concerned.

What are we going to do? Are we going to sit down and say: Hey, you know what. When the Democrats were in the minority around here they insisted on 60 votes on just about every issue, particularly important ones. We are now insisting on 60 votes, now that we are in the minority. Yet somewhere along the way the issue of c-o-m-i-t-y and the national interest suffers and is abandoned by the wayside of politics.

The Senator from Michigan and I will sit here this afternoon and we will have statements made by various Members as they come to the floor. There are, if my past experience with this bill is accurate, probably 100, maybe more, amendments that will be pending because there are so many issues that are important to Members and important to the defense of this Nation. It is very likely, from this scenario I am seeing, that we will for the first time in at least 26 years not pass a Defense authorization bill--certainly not in a timely manner. We are already into the month of July, and, obviously, we will not spend all 4 weeks on this issue.

I think in days gone by--and we all have a tendency to remember the good parts and not the bad parts--there was a tendency for the managers of the bill and the majority and whatever party was in the minority leaders would sit down and say: OK, we are going to narrow down the amendments. We are going to have agreement for a certain number of amendments and votes, and it would take us a while. I can remember sometimes it taking 2 weeks. That is why we usually bump it up against a recess because one thing in the 20 years I have been here we have never missed is a recess. Now we are going to sit here for this afternoon. It is Tuesday afternoon, and we are going to have various statements. Members on both sides will display their dedication to the men and women in the military. I appreciate that. I appreciate the patriotism of every single Member of this body. But are we really going to do anything for them? Are we really going to try to help them? Or are we going to be locked in combat on an issue that should not be on this bill?

We probably have taken up the issue of the war in Iraq eight or nine times. I don't know exactly how many times. We have amendments, we have debates, we have 60 votes, and then we move on to something else. Meanwhile, we have not done a single appropriations bill, I might add, and we are in the month of July.

Everybody knows, even though I don't happen to agree with it, that September will be a seminal time on the Iraq issue.

General Petraeus will be coming back, and he will be issuing his report, which, by the way, I can predict what it is going to be right now; mixed, some success and some frustration. Then, guess what, in September, we are going to go through another debate. We are going to have amendments, and we are going to have 60 votes again.

Meanwhile, the American people are wondering what in the heck we are all about here, and why in the world, in all due respect to the deputy majority leader, do we have to keep taking up the Iraq issue when we know full well that in September there will be a major debate on this issue?

Meanwhile, the men and women in the military who are serving, to whom I see declaration after declaration of our dedication and devotion to their welfare and benefit, then what is going to equip them? What is going to train them? What is going to give them the pay raise? What is going to take care of them is somehow lost in the rhetoric of 60-vote requirements, which again, most Americans do not understand nor should they be required to, because they expect us to come here and act in their benefit. Certainly they should be asking us to act on an issue, on a piece of legislation such as the Defense authorization bill which has to do with the defense of this Nation.

Well, I could go on for a long time.

I do not want in any way my comments to be construed as a lack of respect and appreciation for the chairman of the committee, and the many years we have worked together, because I am convinced he and I could sit down in a very short period of time and work out the number of amendments and schedule votes and time agreements. But we are not going to do that. We are not going to do that. But please do not come to the floor, I ask my colleagues, and talk about your dedication to the men and women in the military and how difficult it is for them in these times, when we have before us a bill to increase the size of the military, we have before us a bill to give them a pay increase that they deserve, and it probably is not going to be passed by this body, at least before we go out for the August recess. Then we get into September. Then we will get into another fight on the issue of whether we should withdraw troops in Iraq.

I don't think we should be very proud of ourselves. I don't. When the men and women in the military whom we again, as I say, all profess our devotion and dedication to, do not get the equipment they need authorized, do not get the increases in pay, do not get the increases in numbers that we are trying to authorize, then do not be too surprised with the cynicism of the American people and voters and, indeed, the men and

women who are serving, about the way we do business.

I hope the majority leader and the Republican leader can sit down and work this thing out. Look, it is a fact the way the Senate works. It happened when the other side was in the minority, that they required 60 votes on issues of importance. I am sorry they did. I am sorry we did. I wish we could have simple up-or-down votes on all of these amendments. But to claim that somehow we are filibustering, when that was the standard procedure on the other side, I don't think is, frankly, too forceful an argument.

As I say, my staff tells me it has been at least 26 years, probably more, since we have not passed a Defense authorization bill. I hope we will not break that record. I hope we can sit down together and work this out. Again, recognizing these votes on Iraq are votes that will be taken again in the month of September, they will be taken again in the month of September when the President comes, when General Petraeus comes with his report, I would hope we could set the whole issue of Iraq aside, go ahead with the authorization for equipping and training and protection and welfare and benefit of the men and women who are serving us in the military. Unfortunately, I think that is not going to happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 800, the so- called Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. Not only is the bill's title deceptive, the enactment of such an ill-conceived legislative measure would be a gross deception to the hard-working Americans who would fall victim to it.

Since the inception of our democracy, we as citizens have placed a great amount of pride in our ability to freely cast votes and voice our opinions on how Federal, State, and local business should be conducted. Our ability to voice opinions through secret ballots stands as one of the hallmarks of our democratic process. Certainly, now, perhaps more than ever, we should be working to uphold this hallmark, not tear it down for the convenience of organized labor, which has been struggling with a declining membership. This bill is the product of partisan politics at its worst, and it must be soundly defeated.

During the early 20th century, we experienced a rapid growth in our labor force and, as a result, a push by unions to increase their membership. In response to aggressive and questionable recruiting practices by some unions, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, NRLA, of 1947. One of the main tenets of this legislation was to afford hard-working Americans the right to privately cast their vote on whether to organize, free of intimidation and coercion from union representatives and employees. Unfortunately, before us today is a bill that seeks to strip this fundamental right from our Nation's workers. Ironically dubbed the ``Employee Free Choice Act of 2007,'' this legislation would enact a ``card check'' process, allowing unions to bypass the long used and successful secret balloting system.

The proposed legislation is a direct attack on one of the most basic tenets of our democratic process, which is why it is opposed by a majority of American workers. A recent poll conducted by the nonpartisan Coalition for a Democratic Workplace found that 90 percent of union households oppose this legislation. Another poll by McLaughlin and Associates indicated that almost 9 out of 10 voters agree that workers should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union.

My concern is--and it is a concern shared by many--that if enacted this measure would expose workers to intimidation and the fear of retaliation for votes cast. We simply cannot allow this assault on democracy from becoming law. Instead, we should be working for the swift enactment of S. 1312, the Secret Ballot Protection Act of 2007, which I am proud to cosponsor along with 26 of my colleagues, to ensure secret ballot elections for employees.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 800 and to halt the full Senate's debate on this ill-conceived, flawed measure.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee I am pleased to co-sponsor the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which would ensure that wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces receive the care and benefits that they deserve.

We were all surprised and deeply disappointed by the conditions at Walter Reed and the problems that our wounded warriors faced after their inpatient care was complete, living in substandard conditions at Building 18, being treated poorly, battling a Cold War-era disability evaluation process, and for some, simply falling through the cracks.

Since February of 2007, many encouraging changes have been initiated by the Department of Defense. First and foremost, Secretary Gates established and enforced a culture of accountability for the leadership failures that lead to the tragedy at Walter Reed. Medical facilities have now been inspected by all three military departments, and improvements are underway. Additional counselors and support has been provided to families. On April 25, 2007, a new Warrior Transition Brigade stood up at Walter Reed to manage all the needs of wounded and ill soldiers, both Active and Reserve. DOD has begun to exert greater management responsibility for the disability

evaluation systems of the military departments. We are on the right track to address the problems at Walter Reed and at other hospitals. We need to ensure that the effort is sustained. This legislation will ensure that these efforts continue.

The legislation requires that the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs work together to develop new policy to better manage the care and transition of our wounded soldiers. This policy would address many of the concerns that have been raised by wounded soldiers and their families, conditions while in a medical hold status, the need to streamline and make more transparent the medical and physical evaluation board processes, policies that facilitate the return to duty for soldiers who are able, and a policy governing the smooth transition of separating service members from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs which focuses on the needs of patients.

This legislation would improve health care benefits to severely wounded soldiers by extending their health care benefits as if the member were on active duty for a period of up to 5 years. This approach ensures that our most severely wounded have as many health care options as possible, especially for treatment of traumatic brain injury and other long term serious conditions.

This legislation authorizes additional funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder and requires the establishment of two centers of excellence for the prevention, research and treatment on these consequences of war. This legislation would also require DOD to develop a comprehensive plan for research, prevention and treatment of traumatic brain injury, which is long overdue in addressing the so-called signature injury of this war.

The administration requested, and this bill would provide, additional authorities to the Department of Defense to hire health care professionals to care for our service members and their families. It would also require the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop an electronic health record that can easily be shared between the two departments.

With respect to disability determinations for wounded warriors who leave military service, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a special review board to independently review the findings and decisions of the Physical Evaluation Boards of the military departments since 2001, in cases in which the disability rates of 20 percent or less were awarded and members were not medically retired. We must act, in light of data showing that some members, particularly junior enlisted soldiers, may have unfairly been denied medical retirement. This legislation empowers the special board to correct military records and, if appropriate, restore to a wounded soldier a higher disability rating or retired status.

The bill would also end the requirement that disabled service members pay back severance pay if they obtain a higher disability rating from the VA, and increase the amount of severance pay that separating members receive.

To address the need for fundamental change in the way that the DOD and VA disability evaluation systems are structured, a belief shared by many of my colleagues, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to immediately implement pilot projects to test new improvements to the disability evaluation system. Such pilot programs will help expedite implementation of needed changes to the disability evaluation system.

This legislation would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish uniform standards for medical treatment facilities and medical residential housing facilities, and a DOD investment strategy to remedy all medical facility deficiencies. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of accelerated construction of state-of-the art facilities and consolidation of patient care services at the new National Medical Center at Bethesda. As a condition for the closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that health care services would remain available in their totality until the new facility and staff are in place to effect a seamless transfer of care. The current facilities at Walter Reed have served the Nation well, but we can and must do better.

This legislation is a start on the journey to restore trust for America's wounded and her veterans, but it is not our final destination. It will take time to understand fully the complexities of the DOD and VA disability systems and to reconcile them in the best interests of our wounded veterans.

We must also look to the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve access to care for wounded veterans and improvements in its handling of veterans claims for disabilities. We must ensure that the VA maintains a robust medical infrastructure for quality health care, teaching and research, but one that also supports veterans beyond the limits of bricks and mortar in communities throughout the nation. I am developing legislation which would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish health care access standards for veterans with a service- connected disability throughout the VA health care delivery system, and, similar to DOD's TRICARE system, when services cannot be provided by the VA, authorize that care to be purchased from civilian providers. Civilian health care specialists are eager to do their part for America's veterans. Given the strain on the veterans health system, and the limits to our resources, we should give them that chance, and make certain that our Nation's veterans get the care that they need, when they need it.

There is no more important responsibility than to act on our moral obligation as a Nation to those who are willing to give their blood for its freedom. Let us continue to be guided by the words of President George Washington in 1789, who said, ``the willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.''

I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Levin and me in a bipartisan effort to make a difference in the lives of our service members who have given so much in support of our Nation.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee I am pleased to co-sponsor the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which would ensure that wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces receive the care and benefits that they deserve.

We were all surprised and deeply disappointed by the conditions at Walter Reed and the problems that our wounded warriors faced after their inpatient care was complete, living in substandard conditions at Building 18, being treated poorly, battling a Cold War-era disability evaluation process, and for some, simply falling through the cracks.

Since February of 2007, many encouraging changes have been initiated by the Department of Defense. First and foremost, Secretary Gates established and enforced a culture of accountability for the leadership failures that lead to the tragedy at Walter Reed. Medical facilities have now been inspected by all three military departments, and improvements are underway. Additional counselors and support has been provided to families. On April 25, 2007, a new Warrior Transition Brigade stood up at Walter Reed to manage all the needs of wounded and ill soldiers, both Active and Reserve. DOD has begun to exert greater management responsibility for the disability

evaluation systems of the military departments. We are on the right track to address the problems at Walter Reed and at other hospitals. We need to ensure that the effort is sustained. This legislation will ensure that these efforts continue.

The legislation requires that the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs work together to develop new policy to better manage the care and transition of our wounded soldiers. This policy would address many of the concerns that have been raised by wounded soldiers and their families, conditions while in a medical hold status, the need to streamline and make more transparent the medical and physical evaluation board processes, policies that facilitate the return to duty for soldiers who are able, and a policy governing the smooth transition of separating service members from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs which focuses on the needs of patients.

This legislation would improve health care benefits to severely wounded soldiers by extending their health care benefits as if the member were on active duty for a period of up to 5 years. This approach ensures that our most severely wounded have as many health care options as possible, especially for treatment of traumatic brain injury and other long term serious conditions.

This legislation authorizes additional funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder and requires the establishment of two centers of excellence for the prevention, research and treatment on these consequences of war. This legislation would also require DOD to develop a comprehensive plan for research, prevention and treatment of traumatic brain injury, which is long overdue in addressing the so-called signature injury of this war.

The administration requested, and this bill would provide, additional authorities to the Department of Defense to hire health care professionals to care for our service members and their families. It would also require the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop an electronic health record that can easily be shared between the two departments.

With respect to disability determinations for wounded warriors who leave military service, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a special review board to independently review the findings and decisions of the Physical Evaluation Boards of the military departments since 2001, in cases in which the disability rates of 20 percent or less were awarded and members were not medically retired. We must act, in light of data showing that some members, particularly junior enlisted soldiers, may have unfairly been denied medical retirement. This legislation empowers the special board to correct military records and, if appropriate, restore to a wounded soldier a higher disability rating or retired status.

The bill would also end the requirement that disabled service members pay back severance pay if they obtain a higher disability rating from the VA, and increase the amount of severance pay that separating members receive.

To address the need for fundamental change in the way that the DOD and VA disability evaluation systems are structured, a belief shared by many of my colleagues, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to immediately implement pilot projects to test new improvements to the disability evaluation system. Such pilot programs will help expedite implementation of needed changes to the disability evaluation system.

This legislation would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish uniform standards for medical treatment facilities and medical residential housing facilities, and a DOD investment strategy to remedy all medical facility deficiencies. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of accelerated construction of state-of-the art facilities and consolidation of patient care services at the new National Medical Center at Bethesda. As a condition for the closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that health care services would remain available in their totality until the new facility and staff are in place to effect a seamless transfer of care. The current facilities at Walter Reed have served the Nation well, but we can and must do better.

This legislation is a start on the journey to restore trust for America's wounded and her veterans, but it is not our final destination. It will take time to understand fully the complexities of the DOD and VA disability systems and to reconcile them in the best interests of our wounded veterans.

We must also look to the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve access to care for wounded veterans and improvements in its handling of veterans claims for disabilities. We must ensure that the VA maintains a robust medical infrastructure for quality health care, teaching and research, but one that also supports veterans beyond the limits of bricks and mortar in communities throughout the nation. I am developing legislation which would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish health care access standards for veterans with a service- connected disability throughout the VA health care delivery system, and, similar to DOD's TRICARE system, when services cannot be provided by the VA, authorize that care to be purchased from civilian providers. Civilian health care specialists are eager to do their part for America's veterans. Given the strain on the veterans health system, and the limits to our resources, we should give them that chance, and make certain that our Nation's veterans get the care that they need, when they need it.

There is no more important responsibility than to act on our moral obligation as a Nation to those who are willing to give their blood for its freedom. Let us continue to be guided by the words of President George Washington in 1789, who said, ``the willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.''

I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Levin and me in a bipartisan effort to make a difference in the lives of our service members who have given so much in support of our Nation.

I object unless the Senator from South Carolina has sufficient time as well.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan amendment. I was a little surprised to see it in order, but that happens quite often around here. This is the same amendment we voted on a couple of weeks ago. It was a close vote, I realize, but I didn't know we were going to have a practice of second chances on amendments after they were defeated.

It seems to me this is something that is very unnecessary. But if we get into the custom here with so many amendments that we vote again and again, I don't think that is good for this process. I think the process that has taken place so far has been very commendable. Both managers have done a great job, but this is another attempt to do away with the temporary worker program. It is another attempt to kill this legislation. That is what it will do. That is exactly what this amendment does.

We had vigorous debate on it once, with a long period of debate, and it was defeated. Now, basically, we are having another vote again. I don't think that is appropriate. But more important, one thing that hasn't changed, I say to my colleagues, if you pass this, it kills the bill. We have made too much progress with too much debate and with too much consensus to revisit the same issue over again and have it carry this time.

I am sure the sponsor of the amendment has some reason for bringing it up again, but I don't think there is a good reason, and I hope we will reject this amendment because it has already been rejected.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from Alabama, because I know he has a great deal more to say about the pending legislation this morning. I appreciate his allowing me a few minutes to discuss my view. I thank him for his courtesy.

I thank my friend from Colorado, Senator Salazar, for his leadership, for his involvement and his integrity. What a great honor it has been for me to work with him on this and a number of other issues over several years. I thank him.

Immigration reform is long overdue. I am proud to support this historic overhaul of our immigration system. This bill represents weeks, months and, in some cases, years of work by the proponents of this bill. The President has shown tremendous leadership on this issue and has dedicated countless hours to the process. While I may not be in agreement--and most of us are not in agreement--with each and every provision of the bill, it offers a good starting point for debate and a good framework. The proponents of this bill have come together to try to fix one of the most serious issues facing our country. We have put partisan politics aside in order to forge a consensual proposal to allow us to start a full floor debate on immigration reform. Others need to do the same.

Those of us from border States witness every day the impact illegal immigration is having on our friends and neighbors, our county and city services, our economy, and our environment. We deal with the degradation of our lands and the demands imposed on our hospitals and other public resources. However, I have learned over the last several years this is not only a border State problem; this is a national problem. It affects the dairy farmers in Vermont and the cattlemen in Colorado. It also affects the poultry processors in Georgia, the construction worker in Nevada, and the housewife in Maine. Our current system doesn't protect us from people who want to harm us. It doesn't meet the needs of our economy, and it leaves too many people vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

Throughout this debate, we will be reminded that immigration is a national security issue, and it is. It is also a matter of life and death. We have hundreds of people trying to cross our borders every day, an estimated 12 million people living in the shadows of our country. While we believe the majority are hard-working people contributing to our economy and society, we can also assume there are some people who want to do us harm hiding among the millions who have come here only in search of better lives for themselves and their families. We need new policies that will allow us to concentrate our resources on finding those who have come here for purposes more dangerous than finding a job.

Last year the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill, but it never even got to conference. This year we realized we had to take a different approach if we wanted to enact real reforms. New ideas and concepts were incorporated into the bill that helped to enhance the comprehensive nature of the bill and ensure the strongest tools were in place to enforce our laws and secure our border. First and foremost among our priorities was to ensure this bill included strong border security and enforcement provisions. We need to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security has the resources it needs to secure our borders to the greatest extent possible. These include manpower, vehicles, and detention facilities for those apprehended. But we also need to take a 21st century approach to this 21st century problem. We need to create virtual barriers as well through the use of unmanned aerial systems, ground sensors, cameras, vehicle barriers, advanced communications systems, and the most up-to-date security technologies available.

This legislation mandates that before we can move forward with a program to address the undocumented workers currently in the United States or future workers wishing to enter, we must meet certain enforcement and security benchmarks that will let everyone know we are enforcing our laws and that we are not going to repeat the 1986 amnesty. These triggers include the hiring of 20,000 Border Patrol agents, the construction of 300 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing, the establishment of 105 ground-based radar and camera towers along the southern border, and the deployment of 4 unmanned aerial vehicles and supporting systems. It also includes the end of catch and release, the ability to detain up to 31,500 aliens per day on an annual basis, the use of secure and effective identification tools to prevent unauthorized workers, and the receiving, processing, and adjudication of applications for the undocumented workers applying for legal status.

Every one of these items must be in place and fully funded before a single temporary worker enters our country or a single undocumented immigrant receives a permanent legal status in the United States. I believe these requirements are a substantial improvement over previous measures. Not only will this legislation finally accomplish the extraordinary goal of securing our borders, it will also greatly improve interior enforcement and put employers on notice that the practice of hiring illegal workers simply will not be tolerated. Business as usual is no longer acceptable, and neither is a de facto amnesty. This legislation would put in place an effective and practical employment verification system to replace the outdated I-9 system that all employers use. In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that employers are still recording important employment eligibility information with a pen and pad. We need real-time answers that will tell employers if the person sitting in front of them is not only eligible to work here but the person they actually claim to be. Employers will no longer be put in a position of judging documents presented to them at face value.

The employment verification system in this bill will allow employers to electronically verify identity and work eligibility through both DHS and the Social Security Administration, while also protecting the personal information of all U.S. workers. If we cannot adequately enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, employers will be able to continue to employ undocumented workers. That is not a scenario we will allow under this legislation.

We need the ability to have additional legal workers in this country. There are certain jobs Americans are simply not willing to do. For example, today in California, fruit is rotting on the vine and lettuce is dying in the fields, because farmers can't find workers to harvest their crops. At the same time resorts in my own State of Arizona can't open to capacity, because there aren't enough workers to clean the rooms. Restaurants are locking their doors because there is no one to serve the food or clear the dishes. We are facing a situation whereby the U.S. population does not provide the workers that businesses desperately need. Yet the demand for their services and product continues.

At the same time we have seen, time and time again under the current law, that as long as jobs are available in this country for people who live in poverty and hopelessness in other countries, those people will risk their lives to cross our borders. Our reforms need to reflect that reality and help us separate economic immigrants from security risks. This legislation does just that.

The most effective border protection tool we have is establishing a legal channel for workers to enter the United States after they have passed background checks and have secured employment. We need to establish a temporary worker program that permits workers from other countries to

come here and find work and employment and to make sure those people are here on a legal basis.

Recently, David Brooks wrote in his column:

The United States is the Harvard of the world. Millions

long to get in. Yet has this country set up an admissions

system that encourages hard work, responsibility and

competition? No. Under our current immigration system, most

people get into the U.S. through criminality, nepotism or

luck. The current system does almost nothing to encourage

good behavior or maximize the nation's supply of human

capital.

Let's look at how this bill would improve incentives almost

every step of the way.

First, consider the 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants who

are already here. They now have an incentive to think only in

the short term. They have little reason to invest for the

future because their presence here could be taken away.

This bill would encourage them to think in the long term.

To stay, they would have to embark on a long, 13-year

process. They'd have to obey the law, learn English and save

money (to pay the stiff fines). Suddenly, these people would

be lifted from an underclass environment--semi-separate from

mainstream society--and shifted into a middle-class

environment, enmeshed within the normal rules and laws that

the rest of us live by. This would be the biggest values-

shift since welfare reform.

Second, consider the millions living abroad who dream of

coming to the United States. Currently, they have an

incentive to find someone who can smuggle them in, and if

they get caught, they have an incentive to try and try again.

The Senate bill reduces that incentive for lawlessness. If

you think it is light on enforcement, read the thing. It

would not only beef up enforcement on the border, but would

also create an electronic worker registry. People who

overstay their welcome could forfeit their chance of being

regularized forever.

I would remind my colleagues the six people arrested who wanted to attack Fort Dix, NJ, and to kill Americans--three of them came across our southern border illegally; three of them came on valid visas and overstayed them.

Moreover, aspiring immigrants would learn, from an early

age, what sort of person the United States is looking for. In

a break from the current system, this bill awards visas on a

merit-based points system that rewards education, and English

proficiency, agricultural work experience, home ownership and

other traits. Potential immigrants would understand that the

United States is looking for people who can be self-

sufficient from the start, and they'd mold themselves to

demonstrate that ability.

In essence, we are rewarding people for working hard and showing potential. These are not all high-skilled workers, but they are the kind of workers and people we should want to become citizens of our country. By combining family ties with economic realities, we can build a stronger immigration system that will help to build a stronger, more competitive economy and Nation.

In addition to future immigrant and nonimmigrant workers, we have to address the fact that 12 million people are living in the United States illegally, most of them employed--all of them contributing to our country. Our economy has come to depend on people whose existence in our country is furtive, whose whereabouts and activities in many cases are unknown. I have listened to and understand the concerns of those who simply advocate sealing our borders and making life so terrible for people here that they will self-deport. But that is easier said than done.

I fundamentally believe our Judeo-Christian society would not tolerate this type of treatment of people within our own country, whether here legally or not. We need to come up with a humane, moral way to deal with those people who are here, most of whom are not going anywhere. No matter how much we improve border security, no matter the penalties we impose on their employers, no matter how seriously they are threatened with punishment, we will not find most of them, and we will not find most of their employers.

The opponents of our proposal to address undocumented workers in this country decry as amnesty our proposal to bring them out from their shadows and into compliance with our laws. No, it is not. Amnesty is, as I observe, for all practical purposes, what exists today. We can pretend otherwise, but that does not make it so. Amnesty is simply declaring people who entered the country illegally citizens of the United States and imposing no other requirements on them. That is not what we do in this legislation.

Under the provisions of this legislation, undocumented workers will have incentives to declare their existence and comply with our laws. They may apply for a worker visa. They would be subjected to background checks. They must pay substantial fines and fees, totaling approximately $7,000, learn English, enroll in civic education, remain employed and, if they choose to get a green card, go to the end of the line behind those who waited legally outside of the country to come in.

I believe most undocumented workers will accept these requirements in order to escape the fear, uncertainty, and vulnerability to exploitation they currently endure. While those who have come here to do us harm will not come out of hiding to accept those conditions, we will at least be spared the Herculean task of finding and sorting through millions of people who came here simply to earn a living.

We are aware of the burdens illegal immigrants impose on our cities and counties and States. Those burdens which are a Federal responsibility must be addressed. We need also to face honestly the moral consequences of our current failed immigration system.

I am hopeful at the end of this debate we can show the American people that we addressed a serious and urgent problem with sound judgment, honesty, common sense, and compassion. I hope we can show that we reached across the aisle to try to solve a serious problem in a serious way.

It seems almost trite at this point to once again state that our Nation's immigration system is broken and in bad need of repair. But without comprehensive immigration reform, it is a fact that our Nation's security will remain vulnerable. We must act immediately or face the consequences of another summer of people dying in our deserts, businesses shutting their doors because they do not have the manpower to stay open, and criminals hiding in the shadows of our society mixed in with hard-working people who are the backbone of our economy.

The Senate must have the courage and will to solve this crisis facing our Nation. The American people are demanding action. I say the time is overdue, and we are failing the citizens of the United States if we do not pass this important piece of legislation and ultimately achieve its enactment and implementation. If we do fail, what then?

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I thank my friend from Colorado.

I yield the floor.

I thank the bill managers for agreeing to accept this amendment, which I am pleased to be joined in sponsoring with Senator Graham.

As my colleagues will hear throughout this debate, the bipartisan group of Members who developed this legislation, along with representatives of the administration, worked to develop this comprehensive reform measure with the foremost goal of developing a proposal that can be enacted this year. It is not a bill on which we are just ``going through the motions.'' Like any legislation on an expansive issue like immigration reform, this is a complex

compromise agreement, and that means that while perhaps no one is entirely happy with every single provision in the bill, we believe it provides a solid foundation for this floor debate. It is a serious proposal to address a very serious problem.

When Senator Kennedy and I first proposed legislation in May 2005, it included, among other things, a series of strict requirements that the undocumented population would have to fulfill before being allowed to get in the back of the line and apply for adjustment of legal status. One of those provisions failed to be part of the consensus before us today due to concerns raised with respect to practicality. That provision required the undocumented to pay any back-taxes owed as a result of their time living and working in our country illegally.

I strongly believe everyone living and working in our country has an obligation to meet all tax obligations, regardless of convenience or practicality. Yes, requiring any undocumented immigrant to prove he or she has met their tax obligations will take manpower. After all, we are talking about as many as 12 million people. Undocumented immigrants will most likely have to find and submit plenty of paperwork to prove they have met their obligations. But that is what citizens here do. We pay our taxes. We may complain, but we pay our taxes. And while I don't doubt that it may be a difficult undertaking to require as a condition of receiving permanent status in the United States the payment of back- taxes, that isn't a good reason to toss the requirement aside. If an undocumented immigrant is willing to meet the many stringent requirements we are calling for under this bill, and I think they will be willing, including learning English and civics, paying hefty fines, and clearing background checks, that person should also have to prove their tax obligations have been fulfilled prior to adjusting their status.

Again, I thank the bill managers and urge the adoption of this amendment.