Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I will say to my good friend from Missouri that was a well-done presentation. I know how important this topic is to him because of his family's commitment to our military, and he, like many other people in this country, definitely has a vested interest in the outcome in Iraq in terms of family members.

The point I would like to make this morning, to build on this theme, is that I passionately believe the outcome in Iraq will not be a neutral event in terms of the overall war on terror, that success in Iraq will not be confined to Iraq in terms of winning the war on terror, and a defeat in Iraq certainly will not be confined to Iraq. It will spill over and empower extremists in the region and throughout the world.

The reason I say that is this: Who is the enemy in Iraq? Is this really a civil war? Certainly there are aspects of sectarian violence and people trying to seize political power through militia groups and the use of violence, trying to destroy this democracy and win the day to control Iraq. There are Shia and Sunni groups trying to do that. But the vast majority of Iraqis want to go a different way. They want to live together and try to find some way to reconcile their past differences and not resort to the use of the gun. I do believe there is some hope this will happen--and not just blind hope but realistic progress in Iraq that can be seen if you are willing to look.

The challenges are real. The Iraqi central government has failed on many fronts to reconcile the country politically. But, as my colleagues have indicated, the surge, the additional combat power that started in February and has been in place now for about 3 or 4 weeks, has made a dramatic difference in certain parts of Iraq.

Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack's article has been often mentioned by Republicans, and they have been critics of the war, but I would just like to say to them, if they happen to be listening: I appreciate your willingness to come back and report progress, and I also understand what you are telling us in your article, that we are a long way from having it right in Iraq and there are many challenges left. The political front has been stagnant, but the military front has moved forward in a very substantial way.

The surge, for me, is not so much that we have moved al-Qaida out of Anbar but that the people in Anbar, given a choice, have rejected al- Qaida. The ability to make that choice was provided by the additional combat power coming from the surge. An offensive strategy is now in place, and it has replaced a defensive strategy. The old strategy of training the Iraqi police and military and hiding behind walls simply wasn't working. The new strategy of going out in the communities and living with the Iraqi police and army is paying dividends.

Anbar truly has changed in a phenomenal way, as Senator Bond said. You can go to Ramadi now--someplace you couldn't go a few months ago. Again, the Iraqi Sunni residents of Anbar tasted al Qaida's lifestyle, had an experience in terms of what al-Qaida would impose upon their families, and said: No, thank you. And along comes American forces to help them reinforce that choice.

The biggest news in Anbar is that 12,000 people joined the local police force in 2007, where there were only 1,000 in 2006. So that means when we do leave--and it is all of our goal to withdraw from Iraq--the goal should be to withdraw with honor and security, and honor means you leave the country without those who helped you fight al-Qaida and other extremists getting slaughtered. I don't think we could leave that country with much honor if we left in a way that allowed those who bravely stepped out and embraced moderation to be killed by the extremists. From a security perspective, it is important that we leave Iraq in a stable situation and that the problems there do not spill over to the other parts of the region and the world at large.

Now, whom are we fighting? There are sectarian conflicts. There are power struggles to regain control of Iraq. That is part of the enemy. Al-Qaida is part of the enemy. And al-Qaida is really not limited in controlling Iraq. It is not their goal to take over central Baghdad and run Iraq; their goal, in my opinion, is to come into Iraq and make sure this attempt at moderation and democracy fails.

Is there a connection between al-Qaida in Iraq and bin Laden and his organization? About a week ago, President Bush came to Charleston, SC, and spoke at Charleston's Air Force Base. He made a very logical, reasoned case that there is a deep connection between al-Qaida in Iraq and the bin Laden infrastructure. To those who say that al-Qaida in Iraq is really a separate organization with a separate agenda, I think you are not understanding who the major players are and what their agenda includes.

No. 1, their agenda is to defeat us in Iraq and drive America out and be able to claim to the rest of the world that they beat us. If you don't believe me, ask Bin Laden or look at what bin Laden says. Bin Laden claimed, ``The Third World war is raging in Iraq.'' Osama Bin Laden says, ``The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and your disgrace forever.''

Well, I think he understands the consequences of a victory by al- Qaida. He also understands the consequences of a defeat by America. The question I have is, Do we understand that? Do we understand what would happen to this country and all forces of moderation in the Mideast and throughout the world if it were perceived that al-Qaida in Iraq was able to drive the United States out of that country and leave it to the warlords of terrorism?

Who is al-Qaida in Iraq? The founder of al-Qaida in Iraq was not an Iraqi, it was a Jordanian--al-Zarqawi. He was a Jordanian terrorist. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. After joining Osama bin Laden, he left Afghanistan, after the fall of the Taliban, and went to Iraq. Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined bin Laden, pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and promised to follow his orders in jihad. Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the prince of al-Qaida in Iraq and instructed terrorists in Iraq to listen to him and obey him. Now, to me, that is a pretty serious connection.

Beyond Zarqawi, who was from Jordan, bin Laden sent an Egyptian, who was a member of al-Qaida's international infrastructure, to provide support to Zarqawi and leadership. And the President gave a laundry list of international terrorists tied to bin Laden who migrated to Iraq to build up al-Qaida in Iraq. They have the same agenda. The agenda is to defeat moderation where you find it, to try to control as much of the Mideast as possible. And their agenda doesn't just include Iraq. The Gulf States are next and after that Israel, and always us.

Now, that is not what I am saying; that is what they say. So I think the President made a very persuasive case that the infrastructure of al-Qaida in Iraq is very much tied to the bin Laden organization. If you don't believe that, come down and let's have a debate about it.

Who else is our enemy in Iraq? Iran. This body passed unanimously a resolution authored by Senator Lieberman during the Defense authorization debate, and part of that resolution was a laundry list of activity by Iran, particularly the Quds Force, part of the Revolutionary Guard, in terms of trying to kill Americans in Iraq and destabilize the efforts of building a democracy in Iraq. On February 11, 2007, the U.S. military held a briefing in Baghdad at which its representatives stated that at least 170 members of the U.S. Armed Forces have been killed and at least 620 wounded by weapons tied to Iran.

This resolution which we passed was a damning indictment of Iran's involvement in Iraq about training, providing funds, providing weaponry, and bringing Hezbollah agents from Lebanon into Iraq to try to assist extremist groups whose goal it is to kill Americans and to destabilize this effort of democracy.

Now, why does al-Qaida come to Iraq? I said before that their biggest nightmare is a moderate form of government where Sunnis and Shias and Kurds and all different groups could live together, accepting their differences, where a woman could have a say about her children by being able to run for office and vote and have a strong voice in society. That is their worst nightmare.

Whether we should have gone to Iraq or not is a historical debate. We have made plenty of mistakes after the fall of Baghdad. But the biggest mistake would be not to recognize that Iraq is part of a global struggle. There are sectarian conflicts in Iraq; I acknowledge that. There has been a major failure of political reconciliation; I acknowledge that. The old strategy was not working; I acknowledged that 2 or 3 years ago. The new strategy is providing dividends in terms of defeating al-Qaida in Iraq. The Iraqi people in the Sunni areas have turned against al-Qaida in Iraq. That is good news. Political reconciliation is occurring at the local provincial level. I hope it works its way up.

Another aspect of Iraq, to me, which is undeniable--and I understand the challenges, and I think I see the successes for what they are--is that the Iranian Government's involvement in Iraq is major. It is substantial. It is designed to break our will. Their efforts include killing our troops, and they are there to make sure this experiment in democracy fails because Iran's worst nightmare is to have a functioning democracy on their border.

So this is part of a global struggle, and the outcome will create momentum one way or the other. I hope the outcome will be a success for moderation and a defeat of extremism.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, about 5 minutes.

Yes.

Mr. President, I will try to be brief. I appreciate the recognition. I wish to speak very briefly on the matter pending before the Senate.

The whole idea of the confirmation process of judges has taken a kind of wrong turn for many years now. There is plenty of blame to go around from both parties. But one thing I wish to have happen in the Senate-- for the good of the country--is to make sure when well-qualified people come before this body, they are put through their paces about their qualifications, their abilities, their disposition, their demeanor, inquiring as to how they think and what drives their thinking, but, at the same time, understanding that our job is to confirm people who are sent over by the President--elections do matter--and that when we look at a nominee, we part the politics of the last election, of the next election, and focus on the individual who will serve for a lifetime.

It is important to understand the nominee before this body, Mr. Southwick, has been serving as a judge in Mississippi since 1995. As Senator Specter indicated, he has been involved in thousands of decisions in a concurring role, and he has offered hundreds of decisions.

He joined the military, and volunteered, as a lieutenant colonel to go serve in Iraq at the age of 52.

The American Bar Association unanimously considered him well qualified, saying very glowing things about his temperament, his disposition. This is someone who has been looked at by people outside of politics and found to be extremely well qualified.

Yes, sir.

Absolutely. I will be glad to.

I do not want to infringe on the 5 minutes. But the bottom line, I guess to my good friend from Illinois, is, I do not think this is about qualifications at all. I think this man has lived a good life in the law and seems to be a good person, from what I understand from everyone who has spoken on his behalf. It is not a question about a character flaw or a lack of legal ability. It is about two cases.

As Senator Specter said, one case involved a racial slur that is a horrible term. The administrative review board, which took up that matter--should the person be fired because of this racial slur--found it was not a repeated event--under Mississippi law, it has to be more than an isolated event--it did not disrupt the workplace, there was an apology made and accepted, and the board found that this was not sufficient to terminate the person.

It went to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, and they, under Mississippi law, had to determine whether the administrative review board made an arbitrary and capricious decision, whether there is any evidence to support the court's finding, and they upheld the court's determination.

Judge Southwick, in that case, commented many times about how offensive the word was, and there is no place in society for this word to be used without it being considered to be offensive. But judges have to apply the law, not emotions.

I guess the question I have is, is there any belief on anyone's part that his concurrence in this upholding of the administrative review board suggests that he, as a person, is racially biased? Does this suggest he is defective as a person, that he harbors animosity against one group or another? I

do not think anybody can reasonably conclude that.

Judges sometimes have to be involved in emotional decisions. If people want to march through Jewish communities holding the Nazi flag, that is horrible, but under the law that is allowed on certain occasions.

The second case is about the term ``homosexual lifestyle.'' It was a custody case, and he was in an appellate review situation. That term was used in the underlying decision by the judge in terms of custody, but that term has been used in many other cases throughout the country in different jurisdictions.

I guess my question is, do you take these two cases, where he concurred, to say there is something wrong with him? Did he do something out of the mainstream of the law? And does it show that he, Judge Southwick, is somehow not the type person you would want to sit in judgment of your case or your family?

I think what we are doing to him is incredibly unfair. There is no real evidence at all this man, as a person, harbors animosity against one group versus the other. Quite to the contrary, from everything I see in the record, he has been a very decent, scholarly man who has applied the law in an admirable fashion.

So I wish we could allow an up-or-down vote on this fine fellow.

I will yield for a question.

Yes.

I believe he was, yes. I believe so.

Yes.

All right.

As I understand it, the problem with Judge Southwick is that it appears there has been some effort to try to get the Mississippi Senators to nominate someone else. And there has been the suggestion he could be a district judge but we want someone else to be the court of appeals nominee. I do not think that is a process we should engage in. So there are a lot of politics behind this nomination. We should not allow that to happen. We should not basically hold hostage the ability of the Senators from Mississippi and the President to put someone forward. If we think they are not qualified, vote them down. But playing politics, trying to change the nominating process, I do not think is kosher. And I think that is what is going on.

No. But I am aware of an effort to get Judge Southwick replaced with another person more acceptable to the Democratic majority and, basically, to take away from the President the ability to nominate a well-qualified person for this slot and, basically, neutralize the two Mississippi Senators, who I think have chosen wisely. I think that is politics that is dangerous for us to play, and I wish we would not do it.

Yes, I understand there is some opposition from African- American elected officials. What I would say to that is, being a son of the South, I am very sensitive to all of this. I have lived all my life in South Carolina, and I understand the sins of the past. They are very real. I can remember growing up. My dad owned a bar where African Americans came into our bar and they had to buy their products to go. I remember that very well as a young man. I see things changing for the better, and we have a long way to go.

But what I see here, I say to my good friend from Illinois, is a man who has lived his life very well, who has been part of the solution, not the problem, who has never used the robe to impose arbitrary justice, who is trying to be a constructive member of the Mississippi judicial community, who has worked hard to make something of himself, and he is being accused of something he is not.

I do not care where the criticism comes from. What I am going to evaluate is what the facts are about this man. This is a good man, who has been a good judge, who is well qualified, and who is being unfairly labeled based on two cases that are being turned upside down. We are going to ruin the judiciary if we continue to play this game.

Absolutely.

No, I was not. It is my understanding there was no objection on your side about him being a district court judge. Is that correct?

Yes, I believe I am aware of that.

Yes, I am, because it is my understanding, if I could reclaim my time--and I am sorry to run over, I say to my good friend from Ohio--here is what I think is happening. I think everybody was OK with him being a district court judge, except maybe somebody on our side, and if the problem with this man is he has associated himself in a way that disqualifies him because of a racial problem, why should he be a district judge? If his problem is that he is against people because of sexual orientation unfairly, why would he ever be a district judge? So the point is that if he was good enough for a district judge based on his qualifications, why shouldn't we give him an up-or-down vote in a fair way in terms of the court of appeals?

So I think what is going on here is that we are trying to replace the discretion of the President and the two

Senators from Mississippi to play with a court of appeals nomination of Mississippi in a way that will come back to haunt all of us, and I just wish we wouldn't do it. Give this man an up-or-down vote on the floor.

Mr. President, we will be there at the committee tomorrow, and I will yield the remainder of my time so we can get on with other business.

Mr. President, I believe under the agreement the remaining time will be controlled by myself and the Senator from Arkansas; is that correct?

Mr. President, consistent with the unanimous consent agreement, we will be talking about an amendment that was discussed last night. Senator Cornyn had some language changes to the amendment that have now been adopted. I believe it makes it a much stronger, better amendment.

What we are trying to do here is add $3 billion to go toward securing the border, and I believe that is a homeland security event. So it is certainly an amount of money that is large in nature but goes to something that is large in nature in terms of our national security needs.

In terms of Senator Voinovich and his concerns about spending--I admire him greatly. He has been a constant, serious, thoughtful voice about controlling spending. This is an emergency designation, which means it is an off-budget item. I think Senator Voinovich has every right in the world to be concerned about how the Congress is spending money in a way for the next

generation to pick up the bill, but I would argue there is a time for emergencies in business life and personal life and legislative life, and this is one of those times.

This is an emergency kind of manufactured by Washington. It is something that should have been done 20 years ago. Now we have taken up immigration in a serious way. We had an extensive debate not long ago, and we were not able to get comprehensive immigration reform, but I think most Americans believe losing operational control of the U.S.- Mexican border is a national security issue of a serious nature, and they applaud our efforts to put money into securing the border between the United States and Mexico. That is exactly what this amendment does.

If there were ever a legitimate emergency in this country, I think this would be one of those times because we have lost control of our border. In the age of terrorism, what does it mean for a nation like the United States, which is being pursued by a vicious enemy that knows no boundaries, to lose control of its border?

It means that you are opening yourself up to attack. Now, most of the people who come across the border come here to work. This amendment does not deal with that. Hopefully, it will slow down how you get into the country. Hopefully, it will control who comes into the country-- people coming to work illegally or people coming across the border to do us harm, it would make it more difficult.

But the idea of employment and the magnet of employment is not addressed by this amendment. We need a temporary worker program. We need employer verification systems so people cannot come here and fraudulently get jobs. That is not dealt with in this amendment. But this amendment is a great first step to controlling people coming across our border and overstaying their visas. I think it is a step that will get a large bipartisan vote.

What does it do? The $3 billion in emergency spending will allow us to hire 23,000 Border Patrol agents to go report for duty; more boots on the ground, more people patrolling our border making it harder for somebody to come across illegally. We should have done this a long time ago.

This amendment allows the hiring of a substantially larger number of Border Patrol agents, four unmanned aerial vehicles that will allow us to patrol isolated areas of the border by having new technology in place--the unmanned aerial vehicle has been a very effective tool in controlling illegal border crossings--one hundred and five ground-based radar and camera towers. We need walls along the border in urban areas where you can walk across the street, but technology in the desert and other areas of the border has proven to be a good investment. This amendment seriously increases the amount of technology to detect illegal border crossings; 300 miles of vehicle barriers, where people can drive up and down the border with vehicle lanes, where the Border Patrol can patrol that area in question and make it a more effective policing regime; 700 miles of border fence. We have approved the fencing. This would actually completely fund 700 miles of fencing. The border is, I believe, over 2,000 miles. Why 700 miles? Seven hundred miles would allow us to control crossings where you can literally walk across the street. The technology we are putting into place through this amendment will control other areas. The additional boots on the ground will help in all phases.

On the catch-and-release program, where you catch someone, turn them loose, and they come right back, well, we are trying to deal with that problem by increasing detention beds to 45,000, so when we catch someone, we can detain them and deport them--without them never showing up to their hearing.

The Cornyn addition will allow this $3 billion to be used in interior enforcement in a way to go after people who have absconded, who have been deported, who have been issued orders but have left and they are on the run. We can track them down and bring them to justice.

Overall, this amendment is money well spent. I am sorry it has to be spent in an emergency fashion, but it is an emergency. The reason this is an emergency, we have let it get out of hand. The goal of this amendment is operational control of the U.S.-Mexican border.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2480 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hutchison as a cosponsor.

I yield to Senator Cornyn to speak on this topic for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. President, I understand Senator Sessions wishes to speak. He is on the way. As soon as he gets here, we will gladly yield back any time that is remaining. I wish to make a couple comments about the amendment.

No. 1, in terms of spending, it is one of those situations where the country finds itself in an emergency that maybe shouldn't have been an emergency to begin with because we have neglected our border security obligations.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Specter, Coleman, and Lincoln as cosponsors of the amendment.

We are where we are as a nation. We have a porous border. Every time a supplemental bill comes through on Iraq, it gets the votes from this body that it needs to become law, because all of us understand, whether we disagree with the policies in Iraq, that once the soldiers and warfighters are there, our troops are there, there are certain things that have to flow from their presence, and we designate a lot of money for the Iraqi operation as emergency spending; I believe rightfully so.

Well, I would argue to anybody, Republican or Democrat, that one of the big chinks in our national security armor is a porous border between the United States and Mexico, and this $3 billion will really help in a serious way. It is serious money to deal with a serious problem that is truly an emergency. It will add more boots on the

ground. It will add agents for there to be a total of 23,000 border security agents on the border, which is a tremendous increase over what we have now. I think it is like 13,000 or 14,000.

But the technology in this bill will be a force multiplier. The technology we spend money to secure will allow the force in place to be multiplied by a factor of many because the technology literally leverages the boots on the ground in a tremendous way.

The 45,000 additional bedspaces will stop a program that is really the wrong message to send--catch and release: We catch you. We release you back. You come again. Now we have bedspace to detain people to make sure they do not flee, and they are deported for coming across the borders illegally.

It is an effort to basically deal with a problem that has been a long time in the making. There is money that will have a beneficial consequence to securing our borders. The term ``operational control'' is a military term. I look at this effort to secure our borders in many ways as a military operation.

I hope this amendment gets a strong bipartisan vote. I understand Senator Voinovich's concern about the emergency designation in spending money offline, but this is one of those times I think it is justified.

To the administration, I understand your concerns about spending, but you have sent hundreds of millions of dollars in requests over-- billions of dollars--to the Congress to make sure we have the money necessary to secure Iraq for our troops' point of view. Now it is time to spend $3 billion to secure our borders here at home.

I hope the body will understand this is a step forward. It does not solve the problem. We still have a magnet of employment that has to be dealt with. We need a temporary worker program. We need a lot of things this amendment does not cover. But this is a great start in providing operational security to a porous border that in the age of terrorism is really not only an emergency but a national disgrace.

I hope the taxpayers at large will see this as a serious effort to do something about a problem which has huge consequences over time if left unaddressed. So I appreciate Senator Reid working with us and Senator Cornyn making it better and my good friend from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for helping us move the ball down the road.

If this bill ever gets to conference, which I hope it will, I hope this provision is left standing as is because if there is a retreat from this, from the money, and from the designations in this amendment, I think it would be considered a retreat in terms of regaining operational control of our borders.

So with that, I believe Senator Pryor wishes to be recognized.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Alabama would like to speak. We have until 11:35.

I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, would you like 5 minutes?

To be followed by the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be evenly divided.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors Senators Alexander, Dole, Domenici, and Vitter.

Absolutely. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and Senator Coburn from Oklahoma also.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my good friend from Arkansas. It has been a pleasure working with him and all of my colleagues. Senator Gregg has been working on this issue for many years. Senator Cornyn's addition to the amendment last night has made it far better. If no one else would like to speak----

My friend from Montana is correct. The intent of the amendment was to improve our security and increase assets at both the northern and southern borders.

amendment no. 2481

Mr. President, a bit later I will be calling up an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill pending before the Senate. I would like a moment, if I could----

Yes, I certainly will. I believe Senator Byrd wants to make a statement first.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment builds a little bit on what Senator Byrd is talking about. How the threats to the Nation are real, how to handle those threats, how much money we need, and where to put the money are all honest and genuine debates. But I think we found some common ground here as a nation from the last immigration debate.

Senator Judd Gregg has been one of the leading advocates for stronger border security since I have been in the Senate.

During the last immigration debate in terms of a comprehensive approach to solving immigration policy, one of the things we seemed to find common ground on was the idea of providing additional border security. So the amendment I have just offered, which will be cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Sessions, Kyl, Cornyn, McConnell, Domenici, McCain, Sununu, Martinez, Coleman, Specter, and many others, seeks to build on what we did in the last debate--to make it a reality in the area in which we have common ground.

The amendment has $3 billion in terms of spending, emergency funding. I would argue that the border security situation in this country and visa overstays are emergencies and that we have lost operational control of our border. We have lost the ability to track people who come here on visas in terms of when their visas expire and whether they left, and we will pay a heavy price, not only economically and socially but from a national security perspective. Of the ``Fort Dix Six'' people who were caught conspiring to attack Fort Dix, NJ, I think three overstayed their visas and three came across the border illegally earlier on in their life. So this amendment puts the Senate and the American people's money where our mouth has been, and $3 billion will go a long way.

The goal of this amendment is to provide complete operational control of the U.S.-Mexican border. It will increase the number of Border Patrol agents to 23,000. It will allow us to appropriate four new unmanned aerial vehicles, 105 ground-based radar camera towers, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 700 miles of border fencing, and a permanent end to the catch-and-release policy with 45,000 new detention beds.

This is a comprehensive border security amendment. It also authorizes things we need to have authorized from the last debate where we were not able to pass a comprehensive bill. It takes some of the stronger border security measures and makes them part of this amendment. As I said, it will increase the number of border security agents to 23,000. It adds 14,500 new Customs Border Patrol agents through fiscal year 2012, increasing the overall number to 30,000. The Sanctuary City problem Senator Coburn identified--he has modified his original proposal, and that is in this amendment.

This amendment authorizes a continued National Guard presence. It strengthens our laws to deny immigration benefits to aggravated felons, gang members, sex offenders, and child abusers. It really goes into our law and cleans up what is pretty much a mess by making sure we have the ability to detain and deport people who are dangerous, who have been convicted of serious offenses.

It gives State and local law enforcement authorities the ability to detain illegal aliens and transfer them to the Department of Homeland Security. It basically allows them to take money from Homeland Security grants and apply it to the cost of detaining and turning over illegal immigrants they may run into and apprehend.

As to visa overstayers, the 19 hijackers who came into America who perpetrated the acts of 9/11, I believe all of them--if not all of them, most of them--were visa overstayers. Forty percent of the illegal aliens in this country never come across the border; they overstay their visa. This will allow the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a tracking system to better identify visa overstayers, who have proven to be in the past some of the most dangerous people in terms of threat to the homeland. It will allow the agency to coordinate with local law enforcement mandatory detention and deportation.

It also gets tough on those who keep coming back across the border. There is this catch-and-release concept which needs to end. That is why we have 45,000 new bedspaces to detain people, give them the hearings required by law, and under this amendment, if you are caught coming back into the country after you have been deported, it has mandatory jail time.

One reason we have 12 million people here is that no one seems to take our laws too seriously, including ourselves. So now it is time to tell the world at large and those who would violate our laws that there will be a price to be paid, unlike the current system; that if you are caught coming back into the country after you have been deported, there will be mandatory jail time. This has been tried in some areas of the border, and it has been enormously successful.

There are many parts in this bill regarding employment eligibility and verification. The pilot program to have biometric cards to determine employment will be expanded, and those who tell us about possible threats to our Nation's transportation system or homeland, we are going to protect them from civil lawsuits. If you are trying to identify a problem and you call your government and say: I think there is a problem here, we are going to make sure you don't get sued for doing your civic duty.

So it is a comprehensive approach. It is a $3 billion dollar appropriation, and within that appropriation, we have some change in policy that will secure the homeland in a better fashion than the current system does. If this is not an emergency, I don't know what would be in terms of our national security interests.

The one thing the Congress--the Senate and the House--should agree on immediately, in my opinion, is gaining operational control, regaining operational control of our border and controlling the visa program that allows millions of people over time to come to the United States.

I would just make one point here. Rahm Emanuel, one of the Democratic House leaders, was quoted recently as saying that his party will not attempt comprehensive immigration reform until at least the second term of a prospective Democratic President. That is a chilling statement. I think that is a very dangerous thing to be saying at a time when our Nation is under siege, and to suggest to the American people that the Democratic leadership in the House is going to put this topic off until the second term of a prospective Democratic President misses the point and really, literally, misses the boat. This is an emergency if there ever was one, and the idea of putting this off for 6 or 7 more years I think would be a national security nightmare. It would be an economic and social mistake for the ages in terms of the role the Congress would play.

So I urge my colleagues in the Senate not to go down the road that Congressman Emanuel has laid out for the Democratic-controlled House; that is, putting this whole discussion off until the second term of a prospective Democratic President. I couldn't find a better issue to show difference between myself and my colleagues in the House at the Democratic leadership level than this issue. Not only should we do this now on this bill at this moment, we should have done this years ago.

This is one of the issues facing the American people where there is broad consensus by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. People want operational control of their borders. They want more money spent to secure their borders and to control who comes to the country, and for those who violate our laws and commit crimes, a better process to detain them and deport them. That is exactly what this amendment does.

I believe our thinking on this amendment is very much in line with the American people. They see this very much as something we should have done a long time ago. Let's not forgo this opportunity. We tried just a few weeks ago, and that failed; a chance of having comprehensive reform failed. I feel an obligation to join forces with people who were disagreeing with me on a comprehensive approach to find common ground. I think the country is urging us to find that common ground. I believe this is a great place to start.

The Border Security First Act of 2007 has been a product that has been bipartisan in nature. It is a collaborative effort between people who have a common view of our border security needs, and it is good legislation. It is needed money at the right time. It is policy changes that will make us safer as a nation.

I would like to recognize Senator Judd Gregg's efforts over many years to push the administration--and the Senate particularly--to deal better with the lack of control on our borders.

I look forward to talking about this amendment further. I appreciate all the cosponsors and the effort to do something constructive now. Let's, for heaven's sake, not wait 6 more years before we do something. Let's seize the moment, and the moment is now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this actually relates to the bill. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I am going to do something else unusual. I think we have an agreement to voice vote this amendment. Quite frankly, the amendment is pretty simple. I think that is why we are all going to agree to it.

Under the current student loan application process you are asked: Have you ever been convicted of a drug offense? That question determines whether or not you are eligible for a period of time to get student loan money. If you have been convicted of simple possession, you are ineligible for a year; the second offense, 2 years; the third offense, indefinite ineligibility. If you sold, first offense, two years of ineligibility from date of conviction.

The application has a question that I think makes all this relevant: ``Have you ever been convicted'' is the question. That has been taken off the application. It needs to stay on. I would urge everyone to support this amendment to keep current law as it is.

Mr. President, to our new colleague from Minnesota, I say she expressed herself very well. This is a debate where nobody expects to change votes or minds in the short term. But it is a chance to express why you believe what you do about Iraq and how we go forward in that regard. It is always good to showcase our differences.

All of us in the body need to ask one question: Why is the Congress at such a low approval rating with the American people? What is it about what we are doing up here that is giving the public a bad taste about the way Congress works? That is a question I don't know how to answer completely. But I have a feeling that most Americans see Congress interacting with each other as if we are talking past each other and not many problems are being solved. We are trying to show the other side as being worse than we are.

It seems to me we are trying to construct a whole session of Congress around exposing other people's weaknesses and solving very few problems. Every now and then, you will step out in the middle, and the Senator from New York, the Presiding Officer--we have done some things I am very proud of, so there is hope. There are efforts

going on here in other areas to try to bring the Congress together and do some things that are important.

About Iraq, the reason no one is going to change their mind is that we just have a basic philosophical difference about how we go forward. Let me tell you what drives me more than anything else about the short term and the long term. The one thing we failed to do after the fall of Baghdad is plan for the worst-case scenario. One of the problems we have had is that we always assumed the best and never planned for the worst. We have gone down this road many times. The mistakes early on have come back to haunt us. We never had enough troops. The security situation got out of hand. We underestimated how hard it would be to build a democracy out of the ashes after dictatorship, and those early mistakes have cost. But in every war, you make mistakes.

What I am trying to do is talk about where we are now and where we are going to go. Acknowledging the early mistakes, we have paid a price. Let's not repeat them in another form. The old strategy after the fall of Baghdad was to focus on training, to keep the American military footprint as low as possible, empower the Iraqi military and army to take over their country and go fight al-Qaida and other extremist groups in firefights and come back behind walls. After 3\1/2\ years of engaging in that strategy, al-Qaida got stronger. We lost control of different provinces in Iraq to al-Qaida. Extremism grew, and we had no political reconciliation.

For 3 years--2 years, anyway; 2\1/2\ at least--I, along with Senator McCain and others, have been saying the old strategy wasn't working. I do defer to military commanders. We all should to a point. Every general and every politician should have their work product judged by results. It was clear to me that the old strategy was not producing the result to secure the country, bring about political reconciliation, and control extremism. As a matter of fact, the old strategy, which lasted for 3 years, resulted in losing ground to the enemy, a stronger al- Qaida, a more fractured Iraq, and we were going nowhere fast. So I, along with others, pushed for a new strategy. The new strategy wasn't withdrawal. It was quite the opposite--reinforce.

Since February of this year, we have been bringing new combat capability into Iraq. We have added troops to make up for the mistakes initially made right after the fall of Baghdad. What has that additional combat capability done in Iraq and what has it failed to do? I think it is undeniable that General Petraeus's new strategy has been enormously successful in certain areas of Iraq that had been previously lost to al-Qaida. To me, that is the most encouraging sign yet of progress in Iraq. What has not happened is a securing of the country as a whole, the destruction completely of al-Qaida, the chilling out of Iranian involvement, and political reconciliation.

The new strategy is just exactly that--new. Instead of being behind walls with a limited military footprint, General Petraeus has deployed American forces into communities that were previously held by al-Qaida in Anbar Province. We have taken the fight to the enemy, and we have been able to dislodge al-Qaida in provinces that they dominated under the old strategy.

But here is the good news: Beating al-Qaida is always going to happen when we engage them because we are so much better militarily than they are. But the people who lived under their control in Anbar for all these months broke from al-Qaida and aligned themselves with us.

The best evidence I have seen thus far of a new strategy working is that not only have we liberated Anbar Province, a place you couldn't go 6 months ago, if you were a Member of Congress, to be somewhere you can walk around now like Ramadi. In the year 2006, there were 1,000 people who volunteered to be policemen in Anbar Province for the whole year. As of now, in 2007, 12,000 Iraqis have volunteered to be part of the police force in Anbar. They are all from that area. Once the sheiks broke from al-Qaida and joined with the coalition forces, they made a call to the local community for the sons of Anbar to stand and fight, join the police. We will soon be able to reduce our combat presence in Anbar because the alliances we have formed with the local leadership, the addition of police, and the maturing of the Iraqi Army will allow Anbar to be held by the people of Iraq who live in Anbar. That was made possible only because we added combat capability at a time when it mattered.

The biggest reason Anbar flipped is because al-Qaida was brutal when they were in the place. The people in Anbar, the Sunni Arabs, had a taste of al-Qaida life, and they did not like it. Al-Qaida engaged in some of the most brutal acts imaginable against people under their control.

They killed family members of the leadership. They went after people whom they considered to be a threat. They imposed a way of life and living on the people of Anbar Province that was unacceptable. Literally, al-Qaida overplayed their hand. At the time they were overplaying their hand, literally comes over the hill American combat power in a new fashion, more of it reconfigured. It was a magic moment where we moved out behind the walls, created joint security stations. Iraqi police and soldiers would live with American soldiers in joint security stations. So in your neighborhood, now you will have a joint security station not far away where there will be American soldiers, Iraqi police, and army units living together that will be there to protect you and your family. These joint security stations have been a fundamental change in policy militarily.

Counterinsurgency is about going into the areas where the insurgents dominate, militarily dislodging them but changing the dynamic on the ground so it would be hard for them to come back. If we will continue to support those who have broken from al-Qaida and joined us, then we will have a stable situation in Anbar that we could never have achieved under the old strategy. Because people break away from al-Qaida, does that mean they embrace democracy--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd coexistence? No. But it is a start. It means they have rejected a way of life that has no place on the planet for people like us.

My good friend from New York, we have found many things that we can work on in common. But here is something else we have in common. A Democrat from New York and a Republican from South Carolina are viewed the same by our enemy, al-Qaida. They hate us both. If they could kill us both, they would because we have agreed that whatever differences we have, they could actually be a strength. When we get into a dispute, we go to the courthouse; we don't go out in the street and start killing each other. In America, religious differences are not only accepted and tolerated, they are viewed as a strength.

There are three conflicts going on in Iraq. One is among the sectarian population in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shias and somewhat the Kurds. That conflict can only be resolved by the Iraqi people embracing what they have in common, accepting their differences as a strength, and rejecting this desire to break away. I think that can happen because there are enough Sunni, Kurds and Shias willing to die to make that happen that I am still optimistic.

We had our own Civil War. It is hard to get different people from different backgrounds to live together, but we are an example that it can happen. But it comes sometimes at a great sacrifice. So the sectarian violence in Iraq will only be solved by having enough control of the security to keep tensions down and trying to build political reconciliation.

During immigration, I learned a lesson. People get mad when you do hard things. They can say pretty awful things about you. I learned a lot of cuss words that I never knew before. That is what happens in American politics when you try to embrace hard issues. People get mad. That is democracy. It is about expressing yourself. You just pay the price when you do that politically. But the price we pay is being called bad names. It may affect your election; it may not.

In Iraq, if you want to find the middle ground, they try to kill your family. Remember how hard it was on immigration when all those phone calls flooded your office trying to tell us: You better not do this; you better not do that. Imagine trying to sit down at a table in Iraq to find common ground with someone who represents a side that just maybe killed your family.

I would argue that political reconciliation in Iraq is hard because it is hard here. It is harder there because of the security environment which has broken down. We would be wise to provide better security. That is the way to get political reconciliation.

The key to solving sectarian conflicts in Iraq is better security, more diplomatic pressure, economic and political aid, and pressure to get the Iraqis to live as one with some amount of autonomy. The Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds are finally going to figure out that you will have a better life living together than if you try to break away because if the Shias try to dominate and create an Iranian style theocracy, the Sunni Arab nations are not going to sit on the sideline. If you are a Sunni trying to take power back by the use of a gun, they are not going to allow you to dominate the country by the force of arms, and you are not going to be able to split away from the rest of Iraq and live in peace because your neighbors are always going to consider you a threat.

If you are Kurd in the north and you think you can live up there peacefully and ignore what is happening in the south, you have another thing coming because turmoil in Iraq will make your life difficult. If you think you can break away from the rest of Iraq and have a Kurdish independent state without consequences from Turkey, you are kidding yourself.

Each group really will one day figure out we are better off in terms of our long-term interest to find some common ground here on how we can live together. That is going to happen, but we have to control the violence better and we have to push them harder.

The second fight involves al-Qaida. I was on this morning with Senator Obama on the ``Today'' show. He said something I believe is absolutely correct: Reasonable people can disagree. The one thing I hope reasonable people can agree is that al-Qaida is very unreasonable. If you could find some common ground with this crowd, please let me know. I have yet to find a way to reach out to al-Qaida without getting your arm taken off. They don't have a plan that we can buy into. I don't think they have an agenda that any of us, Republicans or Democrats, can say: Let's work on some middle ground.

Their agenda for the world is not totally different from Hitler's agenda for the world. It is a religious-based, driven conflict. They have taken a religious view of life that excludes moderate Muslims, Jews, Christians, and anybody who disagrees with them, and they feel compelled by God to topple all forms of moderation. People who do not practice Islam, in their view, are just as bad as we are. They have an agenda to make sure that those folks in the Middle East who reject their religion really pay a heavy price. One, they will be dominated, and if they don't change, they will be killed. Hitler had the same view: If you are racially different, if you don't live under the thumb of the Aryan race, you will be worked to death or killed. Al-Qaida is no different. They have a religious agenda they are trying to impose on the world.

Am I worried about al-Qaida sweeping the world and conquering Washington? No. Am I worried about al-Qaida taking over all of Iraq? No. Here is what I am worried about: If we let the country break apart and we have chaos in Iraq, they flourish, al-Qaida flourishes, because they go to places where lawlessness reigns, where they can intimidate people, and it allows them to move their agenda forward. Their agenda is pretty clear: Where moderation raises its dangerous head, lop it off.

The reason they have come to Iraq is because we went there; that is partly true. But the real reason they have come is they don't want the people in Iraq to change course. It is not about us changing course. We have changed course. The old strategy of sitting behind a wall and training and doing nothing else has been replaced by an aggressive strategy of going out in the neighborhoods, finding the enemy, suppressing the enemy, forming new alliances.

Let me tell you their strategy. They are very much on message. Where they find moderation, they are going to go after it. If they can be perceived as having won in Iraq, then what happens to the world at large? Are we safer? The answer is no. What they will do then, by destabilizing this attempt at democracy in Iraq, they will move the agenda to the Gulf Arab States, not because I say so but because they say so. One of the big threats they see in the Mideast is the Gulf Arab States engaging in the world through commerce and basically having a tolerant form of religion. The ultimate prize for al-Qaida is not only to create a caliphate in Baghdad that would dominate the region religiously, it is to destroy Israel. I am not making this up. I am just regurgitating what they say.

The surge--the biggest change I have seen in Iraq has come in Anbar where literally 12,000 people have joined the police in 2007 at this date versus 1,000 for the whole year 2006. The reason I am encouraged is that people again have broken away, and they have associated themselves with a different way of living. They didn't like al-Qaida. They are trying to start over again. We are giving them a chance to do so. The alliances in Anbar and Diyala that are being formed could be long lasting to provide security.

The third conflict is with Iran. We passed a resolution not long ago--I think it was last week--that was a damning indictment of Iran. That resolution had a long list of activity that we unanimously approved to be happening. That activity was the Iranian Government, through the Kuds force, was actively involved in the IED business, trying to provide materials to insurgents in Iraq to kill young Americans in the most effective way possible. We have captured two brothers who were responsible for kidnapping five Americans and executing them, and we have found from that capture that the resources to plan that attack came from Iran. It was a very sophisticated attack. They had vehicles they made up to be like American vehicles. They had American uniforms on. They went into a secure compound, got through the security checks, went in, and captured five Americans working with Iraqis that day, took them off. They were going to kidnap them, but it all went bad and they killed them. We found the two brothers in charge. They have Shia connections. They are tied to the Iranian regime. They were getting much of their support from the Kuds force in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard. That is another conflict.

The question for us is, If we said in July we are going to withdraw in May of 2008, if that were the statement to be made by the Senate by the end of this week, I ask one question: If you were an al-Qaida operative fighting in Iraq, your life has been pretty miserable lately because Petraeus is all over you. We are killing them, capturing them, putting them on the run in a way never known before. That is why Zawahiri last week issued a call for reinforcements, because he understands his force is under siege in Iraq and things are not going well because the local people are beginning to turn on them. So he told his al-Qaida brothers: Hang in there. The winds in Washington are blowing our way. Hang in there. Help is on the way.

I would argue as strongly as I know how that if the Senate did pass the Levin-Reed amendment, which says within 120 days from now we are going to be withdrawing, that every al-Qaida operative who feels under siege would have a tremendous boost in morale. It would be welcome news to al-Qaida in Iraq. The Senate has declared this war over militarily. We are beginning to leave. You would say: Thank God, because right now your life is miserable because of this new alliance we have formed and new combat power we put on the ground.

To those who have sided with us in Anbar and other places, if you read in the newspaper the end of this week that the U.S. Senate declares withdrawal to begin in 120 days, all troops are out by May of 2008, it would be, in my opinion, a heartbreaking event to read about because you would wonder: Now that I have chosen a new course and I have openly stood against al-Qaida and Iranian involvement, what is going to happen to me and my family?

My good friend from Iowa has a different view of what happened in Vietnam than I do. Just as sure as I am standing here, al-Qaida would be emboldened if they heard we are going to withdraw beginning in 120 days. They would believe they are back into the fight and if they could just hang in

there, this thing is going to turn around in their favor. For all those who broke with al-Qaida and joined us, their biggest fears are they are going to get killed. And they will.

What would Iran say? Iran would look at America anew. They would believe, I think rightly so, that their strategy of a proxy war produced dramatic results because what they have been able to achieve is that this experiment in tolerant democracy, with an Iraqi spin on it, failed.

Why is the Iranian Government trying to drive us out of Iraq? Why are they helping extremists of all kinds defeat American forces? Why are they trying to undermine the Maliki government? My belief is, they understand if a form of democracy emerges on their border in Iraq, it is this theocracy's worst nightmare. So they are doing what they are doing for a reason. That reason, to me, is pretty obvious. They do not want any democracy to emerge in their neighborhood because it is a threat to the way they do business.

The reason al-Qaida goes to Iraq is they do not want moderation to take off anywhere.

So I hope and literally pray we will give General Petraeus until September to keep doing what he is doing, and that in September we will look at the evidence presented to us about the successes and failures of the surge.

If you keep an open mind, here is what I think you find in July: The surge has created a change in dynamic on the ground in Iraq beneficial to us and detrimental to al-Qaida, and that is undeniable. Does that mean all the problems in Iraq are over? No. The surge has not produced political reconciliation we hoped for. I do believe if we begin to withdraw, political reconciliation that we hoped for is forever lost because people begin to make decisions based on when we leave and what is best for their family, not what is best for Iraq.

If we begin to leave now, in July--make a public announcement we are beginning to leave--al-Qaida gets bolstered beyond belief. If we stay where we are in terms of a new strategy being implemented aggressively, I think by September the al-Qaida footprint in Iraq will be greatly diminished, and those areas where they dominated will be easier to hold because the Iraqis have made a commitment to hold they never had before, and they will have the capacity to hold. If we will continue to allow this general and these new troops to do their job, al-Qaida is the biggest loser. Simultaneously, we are going to have to push the Maliki government to do things they need to do.

If we continue to show strength, Iran will change their policy. If we show weakness to Iran and al-Qaida, this war does not end, it gets bigger.

In conclusion, it is not about coming home. We all want them home as soon as possible. It is not about heartbreak. We all share it. I have had many parents come up to me who have lost children in Iraq or spouses and tell me: Please, do not let them die in vain. They believed they could win. They believed in what they are doing. Give the rest of them a chance to win. I have had people come up and say: I think my son or daughter, my husband or wife, died in vain. Don't let anyone else die.

Senators Reed and Levin believe that by setting a date to withdraw now, it will put pressure on the Iraqis to do things they have not yet done. I understand that. They believe that without additional pressure, the Iraqis will use us as a crutch. Fundamentally, I disagree with that concept. I think if you say we are going to withdraw now, in 120 days, it does not pressure the Iraqi politicians to do things quicker. It ensures they will never get done. It takes an enemy that is on the run and breathes new life into them. It takes an enemy called Iran and makes them bolder.

The signal you are trying to send has more than one audience. If the Senate tries to send a signal in July that we are beginning to withdraw in 120 days, and we will be out by May of 2008, the signal will be received by this group al-Qaida: We can do this if we hang in there. And the signal will be received by those in Tehran: We are going to drive America out. We have turned the corner when it comes to destroying this new democracy in Iraq.

Every moderate force that broke from al-Qaida, which is trying to stand up to Iran will feel like: My God, what is going to happen to my family?

If we choose to allow the military to continue this successful operation, stand behind them without equivocation, listen to them in September about what to do, I think we can build a security environment never known before in Iraq, and I think our best hopes of securing that nation, so reconciliation will one day occur, are achieved.

It is not about your patriotism; it is not about feeling heartbroken for those who have lost their lives. It is about how do you fight this war with an enemy that knows no boundaries.

My last thought: There has been a formula that has existed since the beginning of time that works. When people rear their ugly head and start talking about their neighbor having no place on the planet, when people start using religion as a way to dominate their neighbor, an excuse to dominate their neighbor, when people openly talk about destroying a particular ethnic group, or a particular race, or a particular religion, when they start doing that in terms of words and deeds, the rest of us who disagree need to stand up.

In the 1930s, too many people sat on the sidelines, ignoring the dangers of their time. The dangers of their time were Adolph Hitler and people like him who had no place on the planet for people who they believed were ``racially inferior'' or different in terms of the way they wanted to live their lives.

This enemy is saying things about fellow human beings that not only should be rejected in words, should be rejected by action. The action I am looking for, when it comes to the al-Qaida agenda, is to destroy it, to use every military force we have to destroy it, to align ourselves with people who reject it, and see this thing through.

God bless.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Madam President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing COL Paul James Sykes on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Air Force Reserve, USAFR. Since entering the Air Force in 1975 with the 315th Military Airlift Wing, Charleston, SC, Colonel Sykes has remained a dedicated reservist for his entire career.

After being commissioned through the USAFR Officers Training Program at the Citadel in 1974, Second Lieutenant Sykes began his military career flying the C-141A Starlifter. Over his 16 years of flying the C- 141, Colonel Sykes held numerous squadron-level positions while supporting an array of humanitarian efforts and military operations worldwide.

In 1993, Major Sykes was selected to make the historic delivery of the first Globemaster III into Charleston AFB, SC, while accompanying the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Additionally, Major Sykes played an integral role as a member of the initial Crew Operations Review Team which was responsible for significant technological and operational upgrades to the C-17.

As a distinguished reservist, Major Sykes was selected as the Deputy Commander of the 315th Operations Group after previously being named Squadron Operations Officer for the 300 Airlift Squadron only months before. In 2001, Lieutenant Colonel Sykes was critical in ensuring that over 1,500 Reserve personnel were adequately prepared for their call to duty after the attacks of September 11th.

Two years later, Colonel Sykes deployed to Rhein Main AB, Germany, where he was responsible for the daily launching of over 35 flight missions to move the more than 3,000 military personnel who were to support Operations Iraqi/Enduring Freedom. After returning from overseas in 2004, Colonel Sykes was selected as the Commander of the 916th Air Refueling Wing at Seymour Johnson AFB, NC. As the Air Force Reserve Command's only wing in North Carolina, Colonel Sykes was charged to command over 950 reservists in support of the Air Force's global refueling mission.

During his tenure as Commander, the 916th Air Refueling Wing received numerous awards and scored in the top 3 percent of AFRC units in the Unit Compliance Inspection. Furthermore, the Wing was awarded the prestigious Air Force Outstanding Unit Award for its exceptional efforts and volunteer service.

A devoted patriot, Colonel Sykes formally retires on July 27, 2007, as a Command pilot with over 9,100 military flying hours. As a decorated leader, his commitment to our country will be forever marked by his extraordinary vision and endless sacrifice. Throughout his entire career and to this day, Colonel Sykes has served as a model airman. Along with his wife Patricia, who has stood next to Colonel Sykes with unwavering loyalty and shared sacrifice but comforted by the humbling gift of serving one's country, I thank him for his service and wish him the very best in his retirement. I ask that the Senate join me in honoring him for his lifelong career of service.

Mr. President, I had intended to offer amendment No. 2064 to strike certain provisions of the bill regarding detainee procedures, legal procedures affecting detainees. I have been talking with Senator Levin and his staff to see if there is some common ground we can find about this CSRT process at Guantanamo Bay--Combatant Status Review Tribunals. There are some ideas that Senator Levin has that I am going to associate myself with.

I thought what we would do, I intend to reserve my ability to offer the amendment--and intend to do so unless we can find some common ground--and allow Senator Sessions to go forward on the Republican side. I will continue to work with my colleague, Senator Levin, to see if we can find some accommodation with regard to the subject matter in question, with the understanding, if we can, that we will do that at the appropriate time. If we cannot, I would like to be able to bring my amendment to strike back.

That is correct.

Mr. President, as to the effect of this amendment, whether it is good or bad, I am here to say I think it is a terrible idea. I don't think it is remotely a good idea. The intent of the amendment is to take care of the troops. I don't question anybody's intent or motivation. If you want to take care of the troops, let them win. What we are about to do with this amendment is something we have never done in the history of this country. We are about to go down the road where the Congress steps into military operations and creates congressional mandates that will basically change the relationship between the commander--the executive branch--and the congressional branch in a way that I think is very ill-suited to winning the next war. It is a dangerous precedent to allow troop rotations to be governed by politicians who are looking for the next election.

Commanders do not get elected. They make decisions in the national security interest apart from the next political election. The moment you put politicians in the role of making troop deployments, then you are allowing the political moment to determine what the outcome of the war will be. Not only is this constitutionally ill-advised and unfounded, politically it is a disaster in the making, to allow any Congress during any war to step in and say troops can only go here and they can't go there, they have to stay home this much--it basically destroys the ability of commanders in the field to get the resources they need to fight and win the wars we send them to fight and win.

The easy way to do this, the right way to do it, is to stop the war. The consequences of this amendment are devastating, in terms of a constitutional relationship between the branches. It interjects politics into military decisions in a way that will come back to haunt this country. The effect of this amendment on the surge will be to kill it. Why don't you say you want to kill it? Why create a situation, through troop rotations, that will have the effect of making sure the surge cannot go forward, because the ripple effect of this ever becoming law would be to stop the surge at a time when the additional troops do matter and are making a difference when it comes to defeating al-Qaida.

The waiver provision--the President of the United States is not going to begin to entertain this. No President would. No President could sit on the sidelines and watch the authority of the Commander in Chief be taken over by the political moment. The relationship this amendment would create between future Commanders in Chief and the Congress and the military is a dangerous precedent because it would allow the political moment to take over troop deployments. The needs of the war at the time would become no greater than the poll for the moment. We cannot win a war that way.

In World War II you were in for the duration--and it is tough. My Lord, the troops need to be praised. They need to be paid more. They need to have better benefits. Their families need more services. But the last thing in the world we should do, in the name of helping them, is to put 535 people in charge of where they go and how they go-- because we are not exactly visionary. I don't think we have risen to the level in this Congress of being able to say we are visionary leaders for this country. I think what we have done is reinforced at every turn that this is about the political moment.

Congress is at 20-something percent for a reason. What I can't understand is what the 20 percent see and like.

I ask my colleagues not to make a mistake for the ages. Not in the name of taking care of the troops should we fundamentally put politics in military decisions, as we have never done before. In the name of protecting the troops we should not destroy a surge the troops are involved in that is beginning to defeat the most vicious enemy known to the planet, al-Qaida. The effect of this amendment, regardless of its intent, is to destroy a strategy that we sent General Petraeus off to execute, in a back-door way, and to fundamentally put politics in decisions in a way that will haunt this country forever, so I urge a resounding ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman for offering this amendment because it is a very detailed list of activities that the Iranian Government is engaging in.

I say the Iranian Government purposefully, because I do believe that parts of their Government are deeply involved in trying to undermine our activity in Iraq. I hope this is something we can rally behind. I hope this is one of the amendments the whole Congress can get behind, the whole Senate can get behind, just as we have with pay raises and other things to help the troops.

I guess I would ask the question a different way: Do you doubt that what Senators Lieberman and McCain have just alleged about Iranian activity is true? Does any Member of the Senate question the accusations that are being

leveled at the Iranian operatives and Government vis-a-vis their involvement in Iraq? Is it something we can all agree on?

I would say that if you disagree, come to the floor and tell us why we are wrong. As you have just heard from Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Kyl, the accusations are very serious and they run deep. The accusations basically say that the Iranian Government, through the Quds organization, their military revolutionary, their guard component, is actively involved in undermining the young democracy in Iraq, and actively involved in killing Americans.

If you doubt that, if you disagree with that, come and tell us where we are wrong. If you agree with that concept, this a chance to speak up and say that is wrong. I hope everyone in this body can muster the ability to tell the Iranian Government that what you are doing in Iraq is wrong and must stop.

The question we must ask ourselves as a nation is: Why is Iran doing this? Everyone has a reason for whatever decision they make as a governmental body. Every organization has a reason for whatever decision they make. Iran has a reason. Can we figure that out? Is it a mystery to us? It is not a mystery to me. The reason I think Iran is trying to destabilize Iraq and drive Americans out of Iraq and the region is because Iran's worst nightmare is a functioning democracy on their border.

Iran is a theocracy controlled by some of the most brutal people in the Middle East. The Iranian President is up there in terms of rhetoric with Adolph Hitler. He is saying things in 2005, 2006, and 2007 that you thought were coming out of the 1920s and 1930s. Does he mean it? I think he does.

Senator McCain said the second prize would be a missile with a nuclear weapon aimed at Israel. That is second prize. First prize for a nuclear-armed Iran would be a terrorist organization getting the bomb.

Now, does anybody believe Iran is trying to produce power through a nuclear program for peaceful purposes? Come here and say so. Do you have any doubt that the Iranian regime is trying to go nuclear for all of the wrong reasons? I have no doubt, I have no doubt that they are in Iraq trying to kill Americans so we will leave. I have no doubt they wish the Maliki government and anything like the Maliki government to fail. They are not interested in a democracy in their backyard. Neither is Syria. The biggest threat they can imagine is to have neighbors who can decide their own fate, to have people next door who can vote for their own leaders, where Sunnis, Shiahs, and Kurds come together, form a new economy and a new government. That is a dictator's, a theocracy's worst nightmare.

I completely understood why Iran is doing what they are doing. What I cannot understand is why we are doing what we are about to do. Why would we abandon this infant democracy, even though it is harder than we would like. We have made mistakes that are too numerous to count. But look at our own history. It took us 11 years to write our own Constitution. Four years ago the people in Iraq were living under a brutal dictator. Four years ago the police force had one mission: Take care of the dictator. The Army had one goal: Take care of the dictator.

Now you have people trying to come together and found a new country out of the ashes of a dictatorship. If you look at history, at our own history, you know how hard it is. But let me tell you the payoffs are enormous if we could pull this off. And when I say ``we,'' I mean Americans and the big moderate forces in Iraq. It will transform the region.

Look at what happened to Qadhafi when Saddam Hussein went down. Things matter. If we fail in Iraq, it matters. And all the momentum that would be built by a successful outcome, which I think is very possible, that same--a different type momentum will be created by failure.

Who is the biggest winner and loser in Iraq? If Iraq fails, if the Government collapses and it becomes a chaotic situation, who would win? I would argue that at the top of the list would be al-Qaida, because al-Qaida would have a place to operate. I am not saying al-Qaida dominates all of Iraq. I am saying they will have regions in Iraq where they use fear and intimidation to operate and they will be stronger.

I do believe with all of my heart and soul that if Iraq fails and this new democracy is curbed, the biggest winner will be the Iranian state. They will have influence over parts of Iraq that will make them stronger.

Another big loser would be Turkey, because the Kurdish north will become incredibly unstable. So I do not think it is a mystery as to what Iran is up to. They are trying to destroy a force that presents a great threat to their existence, their existence as a theocracy that suppresses any form of moderation.

We have a magic moment in the Middle East to change it for the better. It is going to be hard, it is going to be tough, and it is going to take sacrifice, but it will work if we stay with a model that has always worked.

What is that model? When people get up and preach the destruction of their neighbor and they preach genocide and they preach hate and division, the model that has always worked is for the good people to say no. Every time someone like the President of Iran has come along with his hateful, destructive message and no one checks it, over time good people die. Eventually, the killing gets to be so great and the carnage is so hard to look at, good people rally to stop it. We have a chance here to head off what I think is a bloodbath in the making. We have a chance to control an Iranian Government that is up to no good. We have a chance to stand with the forces of moderation and affect the outcome in Iraq for the better.

Will they become the United States of Iraq overnight? No. But here is, indeed, good news, that due to the surge, with additional military capability, there is something going on in Iraq that should be encouraging. Al-Qaida flourished under the old strategy. They were able to dominate different regions of Iraq. When they had control of those regions, they did what every thuggish group has done in history. They did what every ideologically driven, hate-filled group has always done. They overplayed their hand. They have done some vicious, terrible things, and the people who have lived under their thumb have said: I have had enough. This new strategy has empowered these people in the Sunni areas of Iraq to turn away from al-Qaida and embrace something new. It has been possible because of General Petraeus and our brave men and women. Indeed, it is good news.

At the end of the day, this war on terror is about choices. Our hopes and dreams are that people in the Mideast, if given a choice, will reject al-Qaida and find a new way. Our hope and dream is that the Iranian regime will not get stronger but weaker. The only way to ensure that it will get weaker is to make sure its neighbors are protected from its vicious behavior. The only way we will ever win this war is not just killing al-Qaida but giving the power to those who say no to al-Qaida to control their own destiny. The only way we will ever control Iran is to stand up to it, just as we had a chance with Hitler and we let many opportunities pass.

Do I believe Iran is going to conquer the world? No. But I do believe Iran unchecked will change the world for the worse. I believe with all my heart and soul that Iranian efforts to get a nuclear weapon are real, and if they are successful, we will have a nightmare on our hands because I think they would use the weapon or at least empower somebody who would use the weapon. That would create chaos in the Mideast. I know that if I am the Prime Minister of Israel, I am not going to sit on the sidelines and watch that happen. I believe if Iran gets more out of control than they are now, you are going to create a nuclear arms race in the Mideast. I believe if Iraq can push through the hard times and we can achieve stability and say no to al-Qaida and contain Iran, momentum will be built for the next generation of those in Iraq and all over the Mideast to embrace a form of living we can tolerate.

There are plenty of people in Iraq--and I have met them, and you have, too--who are dying for their own freedom. What more can we ask? If you want to be a judge in the United States, you go through a confirmation hearing, and it is pretty awful. If you want to be a judge in Iraq, they try to

kill your family. If you want to be a political leader in the United States, it is a pretty tough life, but in Iraq it could end your life.

To those who are willing to raise their hand and say: I am willing to stand up to al-Qaida, I have had enough, God bless you. May God bless you. May the United States have the courage to stand by you. To those who see Iran as a growing threat, God bless you. May the United States have the courage to stand by you. To the young men and women who are going for the third and fourth time, God bless you. You see it better than anybody else. You know why you go back. You go back because you see hope where people here see no hope. You see change where we deny change exists. You see the ability to make the world better through your sacrifice, and you see the ability of passing on a better world to your children. You see the ability to affect things for the better so your kids won't have to do what you are doing. God bless you.

I hope and pray that this Congress, this Senate, and this country can muster the will to do the things that have always worked in the past. When you see evil, don't appease it; confront it. When you see hatred and bigotry, change it. Be willing to do the hard things now so that there will be a better life for those who come behind.

This strategy called the surge has been long overdue. We have paid a heavy price for misunderstanding the nature of what was required after the fall of Baghdad. We have been stubborn, and at times we have been arrogant. But at the end of the day, we are a good people. We stand for the good. The best we have is our men and women in uniform, and they are there in large numbers, volunteering to stay and to keep reenlisting. Whatever mistakes we have made in the past, let's not compound them.

I argue to my colleagues that the biggest mistake is yet to come, a mistake for the ages. That would be to adopt a policy that will make sure Iran wins and this new democracy in Iraq fails, to adopt a policy that will allow al-Qaida to come back stronger than they were before-- and they will, as surely as I am standing here speaking--and slaughter those who have chosen to say no to them. If that happens, there will be a whole generation of moderation in the Mideast silenced. That will mean the next generation of Americans will be in the Mideast for a bigger war to fight. It is really literally up to us, as a democratically elected body, as to what course we take.

I do not question anybody's intent, patriotism, or motivation. But don't be blinded by the mistakes of the past. Don't misunderstand our enemy. Our enemy does not want to be misunderstood. Al-Qaida has written out the script for the world. The script says: Get us out of the Mideast, destroy forms of moderation in the Gulf States, and destroy Israel. They have written it down, just as Hitler wrote it down. I believe it can be stopped, just as Hitler was stopped. The Iranian leadership is not hiding where they want to go. They are challenging us to stop them. I hope we will rise to the occasion because we can stop them. The strongest weapon in our arsenal is not just the brave men and women who take up arms but the value system of our country which is so much superior to the hate-filled demagoguery of al-Qaida and to the totalitarian nature of Iran.

These are monumental times which I thought I would never live to see. I never thought in my lifetime I would see the world go backward instead of forward when it comes to standing up to evil. But such is life, such is fate.

To the brave men and women who have reenlisted and gone back for the third and fourth time, here is what I can say about you: History will judge you well because when your country needed you the most, you did not follow the political moment; you followed ideals that will last for a lifetime--truth, justice, and the American way.

God bless you.

Mr. President, has amendment No. 2078 been called up, as modified?

Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 2078, as modified.

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

Mr. President, consistent with the unanimous consent agreement, I will take some time to talk about the Graham-Kyl alternative to Senators Hagel and Webb: No. 1, an observation about this whole debate based on what we did this morning. The author of this amendment, Senator Hagel, has my deepest respect and admiration. He is a friend, and I hope he continues in public service for a very long time because he brings a lot of knowledge and wisdom to this body. Senator Hagel and Senator Webb have served in uniform. They have served in combat. They have my utmost respect. We just disagree. Quite frankly, you could bring Audie Murphy back from the dead, and he couldn't convince me this is a good idea.

I am a military lawyer. The only people who ever wanted to do harm to me were my own clients. But I have enjoyed being in the military. I have had occasion to serve as a military lawyer for quite a while now.

To those in the body, you have gotten here the same way as the rest of us. You convinced the citizens of your State that you had good judgment and were qualified for the job. I respect everybody in this body, including those who have served in the military in different capacities. But this is really--to be honest, every Senator's judgment is just as good as the next when it comes to things like this. I firmly believe we are making a mistake to try to get the Congress involved in dwell time or time on the ground in the way that is being proposed.

Do we all find it uncomfortable and disheartening that the Guard and Reserve and Active-Duty Forces have been stressed? Yes. That is why we are trying to increase the military, the Army and the Marine Corps, by 90,000. We have paid a heavy price for the mistakes of the past--not having enough people in Iraq, putting too much stress on our military-- and we are beginning to correct that problem. We have a surge going on that is music to my ears in terms of changing the battle space.

What we have done in the past has not worked. The reason it failed in the past is we didn't have enough troops to secure the country, and we finally have gotten around to doing something different. The ``something different'' has increased combat capability twofold. For every combat soldier we had in Iraq before the surge, we have an additional soldier or marine and combat support person, which has made a dramatic difference.

The idea for Congress to step in at this point in time and say that soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, members of the military--that by congressional mandate they are going to be locked into X amount of time in theater, is not only an unwise use of the moment, it is a constitutional problem for the ages.

The problem of this war is it is unpopular. I understand. No war is popular. I wish mankind could get away from trying to kill each other, but we haven't quite gotten there yet.

One thing you can say about this Congress--I think the last couple of Congresses I have been involved in--is you can accuse us of a lot, but you can't accuse us of being visionary. I don't think there is much visionary politics going on in the Congress. One of the things I would like to get the body to focus on is what would this amendment mean in terms of a constitutional restructuring? If this actually became law, what would be the effect on military commanders and the ability of those commanders to deploy troops based on military necessity? What would be the change in relationship between the Congress and the executive branch? It would be fundamental. The last thing we need in any war is to have the ability of 535 people who are worried about the next election to be able to micromanage how you fight the war. This is not only micromanagement, this is a constitutional shift of power. This is a degrading of military flexibility in a way that will haunt this country.

Now, this will not be the last war. The only thing I can tell you is there will be other wars, and that is sad to say, but it is true. Let's not turn the Constitution upside down and play a role that will impede the ability to win this war and the next war because we are upset with President Bush or because we made mistakes. The Congress has never done this before.

The reason the Congress has never done this before is because it would be a horribly bad idea. When you are at war, the last thing you want to interject in troop movements, how long they stay and where they go, is the political polling of the moment. The effect of this amendment is not only would it change a constitutional balance that has served us well over time, in regard to the surge it would disrupt rotation schedules that have been set.

My amendment, along with Senator Kyl, expresses a goal that has been expressed by Secretary Gates. We are trying to make sure that Active- Duty Forces are not overutilized, and that their stays in theater are no longer than 15 months. We are trying to make sure that our Reserve Forces are not deployed in theater and activated for more than 1 year out of 6. These are goals that will make our military stronger. But we find ourselves at a time when we are adjusting strategy, and the strategy we are moving to is more labor intensive. It would be a mistake to use the idea of helping the troops as the reason to change the constitutional balance that will make every other war difficult to prosecute.

After having been to Iraq numerous times, what most troops want is for us to win. I spent the Fourth of July in Baghdad with Senator McCain. I have had a lot of wonderful experiences as a Member of Congress, but I would have to put this up at the top in many ways.

Here is the setting: It is the Fourth of July, our Independence Day. We are in Baghdad. General Petraeus is having a ceremony for people who decided to reenlist in theater. It is at a Saddam Hussein palace. It is no longer used by Saddam Hussein; it is being used by coalition forces to help free the Iraqi people from their brutal oppression. We had over 600 American military members reenlisting, to do it yet again in Baghdad in the middle of a war. It was the largest reenlistment, they tell me, in the history of the country in a war zone.

Right after that ceremony, there were about 130 green card holders-- noncitizens who are members of the military--who became naturalized citizens on that day. To be in their company, to just be around them buoyed my morale. It made be very proud of our military, and it humbled me.

To my colleagues here, I don't question your motives. We all understand the stress on the military, and we should support these goals. But we should not at this crucial time in this war make a decision that will fundamentally change the constitutional balance that has kept us free and make a decision that will allow politicians to take away from commanders the ability to deploy troops. The last thing we need is deployment and tour length based on polling. That is exactly what you would get.

Now, in terms of the waiver, I understand you can say: Well, wait a minute. The President can waive it. No President would ever accept this. There are people running for President in this body, and I would ask them: If you were Commander in Chief, would you sit on the sidelines and let the Congress take this authority away from you and your military commanders? Would Ronald Reagan? Would any President--you fill in the name--sit on the sidelines in any other war and let the Congress do what we are about to do? The answer would be no. They wouldn't look at the waiver as being a way for them to manage. What they would do is they would say: Wait a minute. I will have to veto this because this is an unconstitutional incursion

upon my authority as Commander in Chief.

I am going to yield and let Senator Inhofe speak, but I would mention one thing about the troops. We are meeting our recruiting and retention goals. Three of the four services met or exceeded their goals. People who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan are reenlisting at the highest rates of anybody in the military. From the troops' perspective, I wish for one moment we could see the need to win this war in Congress as much as they see the need to win it in theater.

With that, if I am controlling the time, I yield to my good friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I thought we had 40 minutes. What time is left?

To continue to use our time, I yield what time is left to Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I appreciate being recognized. Before my good friend, Senator Lieberman, departs the floor, I will make one observation about him that I think needs to be said. This winning/ losing is a big part of wars; it is a big part of politics. Everybody wants to win, and people are afraid to lose. But I have found in life there are some things that are worth fighting for and willing to lose your job over, and to me the policies in Iraq fall into that category because it is much more important in my election that we get it right in Iraq, and from Senator Lieberman's point of view--I don't think I have seen in modern politics anyone more committed to their beliefs than Senator Lieberman when it comes to a foreign policy issue like Iraq. We all know the story of his last election, how he basically lost a primary because he refused to give in to the forces on the left when it came to the war on terror policies, particularly

Iraq. He literally risked losing his job, lost the primary, and in the end prevailed. I think he prevailed because the good people of Connecticut saw in Senator Lieberman a man committed to his ideas, and his ideas he was committed to were bigger than himself. They may not have agreed with Senator Lieberman about his policies on Iraq, but they sure admired what they saw in the man, and that is someone who was clearly putting the country's interests ahead of their own. There is not enough of that. The only group I can say with certainty that is doing the same thing is the men and women in Iraq.

On the Fourth of July this year, last week, I was in Iraq, in Baghdad for my sixth or seventh visit. This was a special visit. I got to be on the ground in Iraq on the Fourth of July, our Independence Day, and be part of a ceremony put on by General Petraeus's staff where he had 580- plus people reenlist. It was the largest reenlistment ceremony in a war zone in history, General Petraeus said. Right after the reenlistment ceremony, we had 160-plus American soldiers who became naturalized citizens. It was something to behold. To be in that former Saddam palace and be around those brave young men and women who are signing up to do it in Iraq yet again and who are becoming American citizens, literally risking their lives to do so, was inspiring.

This debate we are about to enter into is not about anyone's patriotism. My colleagues here, we are friends politically one day and we are on the other side the next. That is the nature of politics. It is never about respect for the person. I do have respect for my colleagues, and I hope the same is said of me. It is about our judgment. When I question your judgment and you question mine, that is part of the political process. Our judgments need to be tested. The decision we make now affects many people. It affects the long-term future of our country. It affects the soldiers in harm's way. Our judgment will be tested by the next election, and it will be tested by the eyes of history.

So here is what I believe we need to do in terms of Iraq policy for the immediate future. We need to listen very closely to what is being said in theater by our generals and by our enemy. Mr. Zawahiri, the second in command of al-Qaida, is not in Iraq, but he issued a statement--I think it was last Thursday--it was about an hour-long statement, and it was basically a call to not lose hope for al-Qaida in Iraq. He was acknowledging that you are under strain and stress, that you are really being pounded, but hang in there because your cause is great, and he encouraged everyone who is sympathetic to al-Qaida to run to Iraq now to beat us because our ideas are just abhorrent to their way of life.

The idea of being tolerant to different religions and views of religion is an absolute mortal sin in the eyes of al-Qaida. The idea of a woman having a say about her child is something they are just not going to have any part of. So I thought it was odd that he would make this hour-long call for reinforcements. Why was he doing that?

The reason he chose to make that statement is because the new strategy being employed now in Iraq is working against al-Qaida. I don't want to overstate it. The main reason al-Qaida is losing ground in Iraq has more to do about them than us. Al-Qaida dramatically overplayed their hand. Wherever they occupied a region in the Sunni part of Iraq, they tremendously overplayed their hand. During this debate, I will give some illustrations of some of the brutal, vicious things they did to folks living in Iraq once they were under al-Qaida control, and the Sunnis in Iraq basically are fed up with al-Qaida. They have had a taste of what al-Qaida offers them, and they have said no thanks. They have rejected al-Qaida's view of how to live one's life and how to raise one's children.

Lucky for us the President made a change in strategy--which should have happened years ago--where we are putting additional combat capability into the Iraqi theater. This rejection of al-Qaida by the Sunni leadership and the Sunni population came at a time where we have additional combat capability to reinforce that rejection. No matter what you think about the surge, it is undeniable that there have been new alliances formed between Sunni Iraqis and coalition forces in areas previously controlled by al-Qaida; and al-Qaida, as Senator Lieberman said, is literally on the run, but they are still engaging in suicide bombing attacks and trying to create as much carnage as possible in Iraq. Where they used to exist in Anbar, they exist no longer in any force. They are isolated now. Anbar, the province dominated by the Sunni Iraqis, is a transformed region in terms of al-Qaida operations. The break of the sheik from the al-Qaida leadership and joining with the coalition forces has been a transforming event.

What can al-Qaida do? They moved to Diyala when the population sided with us, and their safe haven was denied. They went to the Diyala Province. We are doing the same thing there as we did in Anbar: making alliances with local Sunni leaders and some Shia. The big loser is al- Qaida. That is why last week Zawahiri made a call to his brothers in arms: Don't leave the fight; too much is at risk; hang in there, we will send reinforcements if we can.

He made this observation--I will get the quote later in the debate. He said the winds were blowing in our favor in Washington.

Now, one of the highest ranking al-Qaida leaders in the world was trying to inspire his troops by saying: No matter how much you are losing ground in Iraq, help may be coming from Washington. The question for this body is, do we want to be the cavalry for al-Qaida? If things are left the way they are now, and we gave General Petraeus the time and the resources and our total commitment, there is no doubt in my mind that, militarily, we can destroy al-Qaida in Iraq. Why? Because the Iraqi people, particularly the Sunnis, have had a taste of that lifestyle, and they have said no. All they need is additional capacity to defeat al-Qaida. That additional capacity has been provided by the surge. The additional military capability that exists now has made a world of difference. The strategy is fundamentally different.

Before, for almost 4 years, we had been behind walls trying to train the Iraqi Army and police, and getting in firefights and coming back when it was over. General Petraeus, with additional military personnel, has created joint security stations all over neighborhoods where we are living with the Iraqi Army and police, training them day in and day out. We are sleeping with them in terms of staying overnight, and we are stakeholders of that area. Not only are we helping clear the area, we are holding that area and we are having more combat capability. The surge provides that for every combat troop available to do operations before the surge, we have an additional soldier now. That has allowed us to go into areas that we previously could not go into to clear, hold, stay, and live with the Iraqi Army and police force and train them day in and day out. It is truly working.

It is my hope that as we get into this debate we will understand that if we go back to the old strategy of withdrawing behind walls, the alliances that have been formed between the Sunni leadership in Iraq and the coalition forces and the central government will be destroyed. We have put tanks around Sunni sheiks' homes. We have created joint security stations in neighborhoods that have previously been occupied by al-Qaida. It is working. If we withdraw, all of those people who formed these alliances will be at risk. I think al-Qaida will emerge again stronger.

One thing is clear to me. The old strategy of just training and staying behind walls failed. The new strategy of getting into the fight, getting out into the neighborhoods, holding territory with additional combat capability, and forming new transforming alliances is working.

Senator Levin, a dear friend, wants to say we are going to leave in March of 2008, or 120 days from now--I cannot remember the wording of the amendment. Basically, it is a statement by the Congress that we are going to undo the surge, the surge comes to an end, we begin to leave. We will leave a force behind that will do a couple things--train the Iraqi Army and police force. We tried that for 4 years. Training during a war is a little different than training when you are not at war. We train our soldiers at home, but they

are not in a wartime situation while they are being trained. The people in Iraq are being trained and fighting at the same time. They need more than training, they need combat capability that is nonexistent on their part.

That is a democracy that is less than 4 years old. Their constitution is less than 18 months old. The Iraqi Army and the police force, 4 years ago, was there to support the dictator, not democracy. So if you expect, from the ashes of the dictatorship, a functioning democracy in 4 years, I think you are sadly mistaken. It took us 11 years to write our own Constitution.

Why am I hopeful that we can still win in Iraq? No. 1, there is evidence with the new strategy that we can defeat and destroy al-Qaida in Iraq. No. 2, every time an Iraqi soldier is killed or a policeman is murdered, someone takes their place. Every time a judge is assassinated, somebody else comes along and says, ``I'll be a judge.'' What more can you ask? We are losing troops, and it is heartbreaking. The enemy that we are fighting understands that Americans don't like the taste of war--and that is an asset, not a liability. We are not a warring people. It is not our nature as a people to go to other places and take land from people and dominate their life. It is our nature to allow people to chart their own destiny and to be partners economically, while the enemy wants no part of that.

So what I hope we will do is take these amendments that will come to the floor and ask ourselves one simple question: If this amendment passes, what affect does it have on our military commanders to execute this new strategy that is clearly working? If this amendment passes, how does it affect al-Qaida in Iraq and throughout the world? What affect would it have on the voices of moderation that are giving their own lives to change their own country in Iraq? If this amendment passes, how does it affect Iran?

The one thing I learned from this last trip is that al-Qaida overplayed their hand, and we are taking advantage of it. Iran is trying to destabilize Iraq now more than ever. Don't mistake these new alliances between coalition forces and Sunni Iraqis to be a political reconciliation. The bad news from my trip is that the Iraqi Government is paralyzed, the political leadership in Iraq--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd-- are unable to get their act together at this point. New elections would be good for the Sunnis.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

We will talk more about this. The good news is, the surge is al-Qaida's worst nightmare. They have been rejected by the Sunnis in Iraq, and if we stay on them, we can destroy al-Qaida in Iraq. The bad news is, the current political infrastructure in Iraq is incapable of making the hard decisions for the moment. We have to think of new ways to push them.

There is much more to follow.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am going to speak for about 12 minutes. Will you let me know when that 12 minutes is up?

Mr. President, the hope of anybody in politics is to serve in a body, such as the Senate, at a time when it matters. Our hopes and dreams have come true. We in Government decide what matters. What we are doing on this Defense authorization bill matters. It matters to the men and women in uniform. It matters to everybody in the world because during these difficult times the world is facing, increasingly the world is turning to the American men and women, our fighting men and women, to make things right.

Imagine a world without the brave Armed Forces of the United States. What would that world look like? It would be a very dangerous place, more so than it is now. So I wish to say the one thing we have in common as Republicans and Democrats is admiration for those who are carrying the burden of fighting a worldwide global struggle called the war on terror.

Now to Iraq. We are going to have amendments this week that have one common theme to them. It would take the current strategy in Iraq and change it. General Petraeus was unanimously approved by this body to go to Iraq and do something different. He told us before he left: I need more troops. The reason I need more troops is because the mistakes we made in the past have caught up with us.

What is the biggest mistake America made right after the fall of Baghdad? Not having enough security to keep the country from spiraling out of control, not having enough security to suppress the militias. One thing I have learned in life, where there is lawlessness, people fill in the vacuum. If the Government cannot protect you, then you will find groups who will protect you.

What happened in Iraq is the security got out of control, and we had sectarian violence spawned by al-Qaida. The thing we have to realize as a nation is this organization called al-Qaida has one common goal. It is not about Sunni, Shia, and Kurds; it is about moderation. They hate moderation in any form. It doesn't matter if it is wearing a Sunni face, a Shia face, or a Kurdish face. They have come to Iraq to destroy this infant democracy.

The report card on the political progress in Iraq: It is about like here at home. I give it a very low grade. Unlike here at home--we do have a stable society, for the most part--in Iraq they have a very unstable society, so they need political leadership desperately.

After my sixth or seventh visit on the Fourth of July week past, I am here to say there is bad news. The bad news, from my point of view, is the Iraqi political leadership that exists today is paralyzed, very much like we are here at home. I don't see them anytime soon having a breakout when it comes to political reconciliation, but I do have hope for the future that they will do that, and it is not an unrealistic hope.

There is some emerging movements in Iraq politically that can bring about

reconciliation. But here is the good news. The strategy of additional combat power getting out from behind the walls, out of the fortresses, out into the hinterlands of Iraq to fight al-Qaida is working.

The one thing I can tell my colleagues with certainty is, for 3\1/2\ years, I went to Iraq and I came back every time despondent because I could see the security situation spiraling out of control and I was told time and time again: No, the training strategy is working. Our goal is to train the Iraqi Army and police forces, and we are doing a good job.

The first time I went to Iraq, I went rug shopping. The last time I went before the change in strategy, I was in a tank. It was clear to me, being a military lawyer, not a combat commander, that the situation on the ground was getting worse. This time around, after the new strategy has been in place, things are getting better on the ground when it comes to suppressing the No. 1 enemy of this Nation right now for the moment and that is called al-Qaida.

Al-Qaida in Iraq flourished under the old strategy. They were able to dominate different regions of Iraq. Sunni populations were being terrorized, and a lot of bad things happened when we were in Baghdad training and not fighting.

General Petraeus, when he got in charge, when he got in place said we are going to change strategy. What he has done is he has sent additional combat power into areas previously held by al-Qaida. He went to the tribal leaders in those areas and said: If you are fed up, we are here to help.

Here is the good news. To a person almost, the people who lived under al-Qaida's regime in Iraq said: No, thank you. That is not the life I want for myself or my family or my friends or my group.

Al-Qaida overplayed their hand. They were incredibly vicious and brutal and they overplayed their hand. What has happened in the last few months is this additional combat capability that now exists in Iraq has married up with a desire by the Sunnis, who have been oppressed by the al-Qaida elements in Iraq, to join forces.

It is undeniable that in Anbar, the situation has changed in the last 6 months in a dramatic way. The Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar have broken with al-Qaida, they have joined with General Petraeus and Iraqi security forces and literally that province has changed. There are areas in Anbar Province where you could not go before that you can go to now, where there is a new alliance in place. There has been a surge in police recruits, Sunnis joining the police force to protect their hometown against al-Qaida.

So the formula General Petraeus had in mind is not dependent upon central Government reconciliation. He went out into the troubled areas, and he told the people living under al-Qaida: If you choose to, we will help you, and you need to help yourselves. And they have chosen to help themselves. They have chosen to tell us where al-Qaida is operating. They have given us better intelligence than we have ever had in the past. They have joined the fight, and we are winning. Al-Qaida today is on the run. They are on the run because the Iraqi people have broken with their way of life.

The big question for a lot of Americans is: Is everybody in the Mideast committed to extremism? Is there any hope that people in the Mideast want a different way of life than bin Laden charted for them? The answer is yes, and the best evidence I can give is what is going on in Iraq. Where American combat power has been in place in sufficient numbers and levels, the Iraqis have chosen to side with us and reject al-Qaida. That should be heartening news. Given a choice, given the opportunity, those who have lived under the al-Qaida regime and ideology have said: No, thank you.

The permanent solution is political reconciliation, but if we can focus as a nation on defeating al-Qaida in Iraq, it would be a much better world. The political reconciliation yet to come in Iraq would be enhanced if we could destroy elements of al-Qaida in Iraq. The global war on terror would be enhanced if we destroy al-Qaida in Iraq. The way we do that is, again, by forming alliances with Sunnis who reject their ideology, and once we defeat al-Qaida in a neighborhood or city, we have gotten the local people to step up to the plate and become policemen.

The number of police in Anbar Province has gone up dramatically, and they are providing what was missing before: a stable law-and-order regime that is rejecting extremism.

The police forces in the Sunni areas in Anbar are doing very well. They have the trust of the people, and they are marrying up with Iraqi Army units, where most of the officers are Shias. But we found the Shia Iraqi Army leadership and the Sunni police forces have worked well together in Anbar.

What did the enemy do? They moved to Diyala. We are going to the Diyala Province, another Sunni area, more mixed than Anbar, and we are getting the same results. Extreme violence is the first thing we get, terrorism. This spectacular attack will continue for a long time to come, but the actual situation on the ground has changed dramatically in Anbar, and it is beginning to change in Diyala. Why? We never before had combat capability in the Diyala Province. The tribal leaders in that province have joined with us, as they did in Anbar. More people are joining the police and, again, al-Qaida is moving down the road.

The goal for us as a nation is to sustain this capability until we defeat al-Qaida in Iraq. I don't believe that is going to take much longer because what we have left behind in Anbar in a few months is going to be mature enough that we will not need that many troops. In a few months from now, we are going to have a mature police force and a well-trained Army to control areas in Anbar Province that previously were in the hands of al-Qaida. It is going to take some time.

When General Petraeus comes back in September, I think he will give us a mixed report. That will be the honest truth. There are still areas in Iraq very much in doubt. But where we go in force and where people have the choice to make, they are making the choice we hoped they would make.

Our choice in Congress is whether we change course. Do we, in July, adopt amendments that will destroy the Petraeus strategy and replace it with the old strategy? One thing my Democratic and Republican colleagues have in common is they are trying to do what is best for the country.

This is what I think is best. I think it is best not to do anything now that would give al-Qaida a second chance in life. I don't want the Senate to be the cavalry for al-Qaida. By that I mean, I don't want us to adopt an amendment that will destroy the ability of General Petraeus to go after the enemy in an aggressive fashion and continue forming these alliances by undercutting his ability to have the manpower he needs. The old strategy has failed. To go back to the old strategy is a godsend to al-Qaida and is a death blow to those who have come out of the shadows to say: I want a better way; I want a better Iraq.

We have a chance to give this general and the troops who have gone as part of this surge a chance to do something that I think is in our national security interest: Keep al-Qaida on the run and destroy it. I am convinced now more than ever that the ability to destroy al-Qaida in Iraq is within our grasp, and it is a combination of additional American military power and the will and the desire of the Iraqi people to reject al-Qaida.

Let's not be the cavalry for al-Qaida. Let's not do something politically in Washington that will put them back in the fight. We are going to be taking casualties as long as al-Qaida exists anywhere on the planet. My goal and the military's goal is to fight them over there, suppress them over there, bring out the best in the people in the Mideast, and we are seeing, slowly but surely, that the people in Iraq who have lived under al-Qaida are turning away. That is indeed good news. Are they turning to democracy and political unity? No, not yet. But the precondition, the forming of a new Iraq is to take those who wish to destroy this new democracy and isolate them and destroy them before they can destroy this idea called moderation.

The al-Qaida agenda is not limited to Iraq, but they see it as a central battlefront in the war on terror. We should see it as the central battlefront in the war on terror. Any amendment that is adopted in July that would undo the Petraeus strategy is shortsighted and, in the long run, very devastating to our national security interests.

I urge my colleagues to look closely and ask the questions that need to be asked, not for the next election but for the next generation of young Americans and people in the Mideast, and that question is: If we do not stay committed to this fight against an enemy who hates everything we stand for now, what are the consequences later? I can tell my colleagues, and I will close with this thought, that history tells us the answer to that question. Every time extremism has been appeased, good people die unnecessarily. We have good people in Iraq. The Iraqi people have good people among their population. Our men and women in uniform are the best we have to offer. This alliance between the good will defeat the evil, as it always has done, only if we have greater will than our enemy.

The votes we are about to take are about political will. I hope we will choose the path that history tells us we should take. Say no to extremism and yes to moderation.

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

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to retired Colonel Michael Wayne Butler. On June 12, 2007, South Carolina lost a true patriot when Colonel Butler was killed while working for a contractor near Tikrit, Iraq. He is survived by his wife Joanne, sons Mike and Daniel, and grandson Da'Kori.

Colonel Butler's career in the Air Force began when he graduated from the U.S. Air Academy in 1976. Upon graduation, Colonel Butler was commissioned an aircraft maintenance officer. Colonel Butler's career in the Air Force was nothing less than distinguished. He had the opportunity to command the 50th Component Repair Squadron at Hahn AB, Germany, and later the 39th Logistics Group at Incirlik AB, Turkey. In many ways, Colonel Butler's final tour was one of his most complicated ones. Responsible for developing contingency plans and conducting air operations in a 25-nation area of responsibility covering a large swath of the globe, Colonel Butler served as CENTAF Director of Logistics at Shaw AFB in South Carolina. After 30 years of distinguished military service, earning a Bronze Star, a Meritorious Service Medal with six oak leaf clusters, and an Air Force Commendation Medal, Colonel Butler took a much deserved retirement from the Air Force in 2006.

Continuing his love of travel, Colonel Butler trekked around the world with his wife after retiring. Though Colonel Butler would soon be pursuing a new calling, the Butlers established a home in Rembert, SC. In December of 2006, Colonel Butler joined DynCorp International to be the senior deputy program manager for CIVPOL. His new occupation sent him to Iraq. Colonel Butler's experience in the region and his dedication to the cause of freedom was surely an asset in his new duties. On his final mission to advance our cause in Iraq, Colonel Butler was transporting prisoners in a five-vehicle convoy with the U.S. military and Iraqi police when his vehicle was hit by an IED and small arms fire. Colonel Butler and one American soldier lost their lives.

Colonel Butler's love of life extended beyond the battlefield. An avid runner, Colonel Butler competed in and completed the Marine Corps Marathon. Completing the marathon once is quite an accomplishment, but Colonel Butler embraced the challenge of the marathon and completed it multiple times. I was moved to hear that his family will run the marathon in Colonel Butler's absence this year.

Colonel Butler will be buried at Arlington Cemetery on August 22 with full honors. As he departs on his final mission, his memory and legacy will not fade from the hearts and minds of all of the people he came across in his life. He will be missed but this Nation will never forget.