Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5603 which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 520, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5403, the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this bill, H.R. 5403, the adoption bill, is a bill that is aimed at improving protection for children. It holds States accountable for the safe and timely placement of children across State lines.

I am gratified we have passed this bill today to help our children who are in foster care. Finding permanent and loving homes for foster care children is the first order of a compassionate society. Far too often, these children bounce from one temporary situation to another and then to another, never finding a permanent loving family.

The bill we passed just a few moments ago speeds their placement by making interstate placements easier, particularly with extended family. I, in particular, commend the former majority leader of the House, Tom DeLay, for his passionate crusade for at-risk children. A foster parent himself, Tom has worked tirelessly on adoption and foster care issues during his long service in the House of Representatives.

It is a fitting tribute to Tom DeLay's service that the House passed this bill on his last day in office. And I am gratified we just passed it a few moments ago.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2370, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the McConnell amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to make a brief comment on the legislation. I congratulate my colleague, Senator McConnell, for leading on this amendment as the primary sponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.

Although all our colleagues have had the opportunity to review and express their support for this act, very briefly, I would like to at least comment on a couple of things that it does that are very important to the United States and our international relations.

The bill itself states that it shall be U.S. policy ``to support a peaceful, two-state solution to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. . . .''

It also promotes democracy and the cessation of terrorism and incitement in institutions and territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority and urges members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas until it agrees to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm, and accept prior agreements, including the roadmap.

This is a very important piece of legislation, one that has been led by Senator McConnell. I know he has made several comments and has comments in the Record on this important bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 26. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business until 4 p.m., with the time equally divided between the leaders or their designees. I further ask that at 4 p.m., the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the flag antidesecration resolution, as under the previous order.

Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of the flag resolution. There will be no votes during Monday's session, but Senators are encouraged to come to the floor to speak. The next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday, and Members should plan their schedules accordingly.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, this morning we will be resuming debate on a couple of pending amendments to the Defense authorization bill. Under the agreement, we will have 60 minutes of debate and closing remarks in relation to the Levin amendment and the Kerry amendment related to Iraq. Following that 60 minutes, the two leaders will have up to 30 minutes total for final remarks. After those statements, we will proceed to three rollcall votes. The first vote will be on the Levin amendment, to be followed by the Kerry amendment, to be followed by a vote on cloture on the bill.

If cloture is invoked, the two managers will then be in a better position to indicate how much work remains on the Defense bill. It is our intent to continue to work toward final passage, and therefore Senators should expect votes throughout the day and into the evening. I will have an update for Members early this afternoon after we conclude the votes and I consult with the Democratic leader and the bill managers.

Madam President, I thank both managers for a superb debate and discussion over the course of the last several days--and really the last several weeks--as we have focused on an issue that is no more important to the American people than the safety and security of the American people.

We can take great pride in what our Nation and our military men and women have accomplished in Iraq. We thank them. We thank their families for their commitment and for their dedication. But we did not go into Iraq in pursuit of oil or riches or some other national advantage. We went as a volunteer--as a nation willing to enforce the mandates of the you U.N. Security Council when others were content to allow Saddam Hussein to defy those mandates.

Some critics accused us at the time of ``unilateralism,'' but in fact we acted to vindicate multilateralism--most importantly, the authority of the Security Council and the credibility of many resolutions it adopted with respect to Iraq between 1991 and 2003.

We went into Iraq to end a cruel dictatorship and free a people that was no less deserving of freedom than any other. As a result of our efforts, the dictatorship has ended, and the people of Iraq are now embarked on a grand democratic project, seeking to build a pluralistic, multiethnic, multireligious democracy in the heart of the Arab world.

This is a project without precedent in the Arab world. And because it is so novel, it has come under assault from religious fundamentalists, Sunni and Shiite extremists, and others whose narrow agendas are threatened by the prospect of democracy in that part of the world.

We have made an enormous investment in the success of this project. It would be foolish to squander that investment just as we are seeing success.

Last year, millions of Iraqis--half of them women--defied the threats of the terrorists and streamed to the polls in three national elections. Iraq's Sunni population participated in greater numbers each time.

On June 8--just a couple of weeks ago--the new democratically elected Prime Minister Jawad al-Maliki named the last three Cabinet members, the Ministers of Defense, Interior, and Security, thereby completing formation of his unity government.

That same day, the death of the foremost terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was announced in Baghdad. That was huge progress.

We made a commitment to the new government of Prime Minister Maliki, and it would be impossible to imagine a worse time than now, just 2 weeks after that government was fully formed and its most ferocious enemy eliminated, to turn our backs on it.

None of us know for sure exactly how the democratic reform in Iraq will turn out, as we stay committed, but we do know it will fail if it is abandoned prematurely by the United States.

Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution. Every Senator must make his own decision and live with his own conscience, but this Senator will not be responsible for condemning the 26 million people of Iraq to decades more of violence and repression--not when there is a democratic alternative before us that is so manifestly committed to creating the kind of pluralistic society that until now has been absent from the Arab world.

Another reason we went into Iraq was because we were convinced that Saddam Hussein was continuing his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction--chemical weapons that he had developed and used before.

And the events of 9/11 had taught us that there is no greater threat to us today than that posed by state sponsors of terrorism--such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein--working to acquire such weapons.

After the war, of course, there emerged a big debate over whether Saddam Hussein really was working on weapons of mass destruction in 2003.

But there is no debate that there was a strong international consensus prior to 2003 that Saddam Hussein must be pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

This was the view not only of the Bush administration, but also of the Clinton administration, as well as the opinion of most other governments around the world.

It made sense for two reasons.

First, Saddam Hussein had a long track record of not only seeking, but also of using, chemical weapons. He had used chemical weapons against his own people in the 1980s. And at the end of the first Persian Gulf war in 1991 he was found to have an advanced nuclear weapons program--a program that may have only been 1 to 2 years away from producing a nuclear weapon.

Second, Saddam Hussein was acting like a man who had something to hide; he was obstructing the U.N.'s weapons inspectors and repeatedly defying U.S. disarmament mandates. No one can explain why Saddam acted this way if he in fact had no weapons of mass destruction programs to hide.

And it is certainly true that if Saddam Hussein were still in power today, Iraq would remain on the list with Iran and North Korea of countries that we fear will develop weapons of mass destruction and pass them to terrorists.

Because Saddam Hussein has been removed from power, Iraq is no longer on that list.

But we must remember that many of Saddam's weapons scientist--those who produced the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds in the 1980s and who came close to producing nuclear weapons in the early 1990s--are still in Iraq.

However, in a democratic Iraq these scientists pose no threat because a democratic Iraq would never seek to revive Saddam Hussein's weapons programs.

If we were to cut and run from Iraq, and risk letting the terrorists take power, we would again have to fear that these scientists, and what remains of Saddam's weapons infrastructure, would once again be put to work producing weapons that in the hands of international terrorists could destroy our cities and decimate our population.

Again, every Senator must live with his own conscience, but this Senator does not want to be complicit in a decision that could reverse the success we've achieved since 9/11 in keeping terrorism from our shores and weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.

The amendments before us are intentionally misleading. They are written in soft language and wrapped in reassuring concepts.

They don't sue such terms as ``retreat'' or ``withdrawal,'' but instead call for ``redeployment'' of our Armed Forces from Iraq.

They don't say that the withdrawal should take place on an artificial timetable and be concluded by an arbitrary date. Instead, they say that the ``redeployment'' should take place under a ``schedule,'' that the ``schedule'' should be ``planned,'' that the ``plan'' should be ``coordinated'' with the Government of Iraq, and that the Congress should be ``consulted'' at every stage.

None of this artful language, however, can conceal what is really proposed and what really at stake.

The proponents of these amendments want us to tell the new Government of Iraq that we're leaving--no matter what the implications for the future of their country; no matter how much they plead with us to stay; no matter how great the risk that the investment that we and they have made to date in building a new Iraq will be squandered and turned to naught.

The amendments may differ in some of the details--how long we'll wait until we actually leave, how emphatically we tell the Iraqi people we really care about them as we walk out the door, but the bottom line is the same.

The amendments tell us to set a deadline and leave by the deadline.

This would be a dangerous policy, a reckless policy, and a shameful policy.

The time to leave Iraq is when we have achieved our objectives. If we knew our objectives were unachievable then these amendments might make sense. But our objectives are achievable and we are achieving them.

The brave men and women of our Armed Forces are fighting daily to win victory in Iraq, and it would dishonor them, to say nothing of their fallen comrades, to cut and run at a time as promising as now.

The spirit of these amendments is the spirit of defeatism and surrender.

This is not the spirit that made America the great Nation it is today, and I trust that when we vote we will

send the message that there is no room for defeatism in the United States.

Mr. President, I know in a few moments we will be voting. I did want to come to the floor and speak strongly in support of the Sessions missile defense amendment.

More than 23 years have passed since President Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative--the idea that our Nation should develop the ability to protect itself against the threat of missile attack by being able to shoot down incoming missiles.

President Reagan's idea has been very controversial ever since it was announced.

For some reason there has always been a very substantial school of thought, especially on the other side of the aisle, that we are better off being defenseless against missile attack; that instead of being able to shoot down incoming missiles, we should rely instead exclusively on the threat that we will strike back after someone else attacks us first.

This policy of intentional vulnerability--of intentionally exposing our cities and our people to the threat of missile attack--has never made sense to me or to the American people.

But that hasn't stopped repeated efforts over the years by opponents of missile defense to reduce or even eliminate funding for research, development, and deployment of missile defenses.

Fortunately, Republican administrations and Republican Congresses over the last 23 years have fought to continue our national investment in missile defense.

Thanks to our efforts, our Nation today has a number of missile defense systems and components in place, including a total of 11 ground-based midcourse interceptors fielded in Alaska and California, and more are on the way.

This system is working today to defend the American people.

As Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Flory testified 3 months ago before a House committee:

The United States today has all of the pieces in place

needed to intercept an incoming long-range ballistic missile:

ground based interceptors in Alaska and California; a network

of ground, sea, and space-based sensors; a command and

control network; and most importantly, trained servicemen

and women ready to operate the system. Our ballistic

missile defense system today is primarily oriented toward

continued development and testing. But we are confident

that it could intercept a long-range ballistic missile if

called upon to do so.

The existence of this system, rudimentary though it may be,

is a great source of comfort to the American people,

especially as we confront the threat that North Korea may

test fire an ICBM eastward across the Pacific Ocean any day

now.

No less an expert than Dr. William J. Perry, President

Clinton's Secretary of Defense, has seen the risk of such a

test launch by North Korea as sufficiently threatening to

America to justify a preemptive U.S. attack on the North

Korean ICBM while it is still sitting on its launch pad.

Secretary Perry, in his op-ed in today's Washington Post,

acknowledges that attacking the North Korean ICBM on the

ground in North Korea would be a high-risk action that could

lead to war between the United States and North Korea.

I certainly want to avoid a war with North Korea if at all

possible. At the same time, I cannot disagree with Secretary

Perry that North Korea's missile program poses a great threat

to our Nation that we cannot ignore.

It was precisely to avoid having to choose between

preemptive war and defenselessness that our Nation has been

pursuing missile defense for the last 23 years.

Senator Session's amendment underscores and increases our Nation's commitment to missile defense by increasing the funding for it in this bill by $45 million.

It is a worthy amendment that builds on the commitment that many of us have demonstrated over the years to missile defense.

I understand that the distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, has expressed his support for the amendment, which I welcome--not only because I value his support, but also because, it renews my faith in the power of redemption.

I know we will be voting shortly, but I urge strong support of the Sessions amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:45 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to stacked votes in relation to the following amendments to the Defense authorization bill: Chambliss No. 4261, Sessions No. 4471, as modified. I further ask that there be no amendments to the amendments in order prior to the votes and that after the first vote, all rollcall votes be 10 minutes in length; further that there be 2 minutes equally divided between each vote after the first.

I ask unanimous consent that following the stacked votes that begin shortly in relation to the Defense authorization bill, the Senate proceed to executive session and to immediate votes on the following nominations: No. 704, Andrew Guilford, U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; No. 714, Frank D. Whitney, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina.

I ask unanimous consent that prior to each vote it be in order for the Senators from California and the Senators from North Carolina to speak for up to 3 minutes each or to submit statements for the Record prior to the votes; provided further, that following those votes, the Senate proceed to the consideration of No. 715, the nomination be confirmed, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I will turn to the chairman and the ranking member to comment on what they expect over the course of the afternoon, but the two unanimous-consent requests that we just did means that we will have a series of two or three rollcall votes and one by voice. And then after that, I will turn to the chairman and ranking member as to what we might expect in terms of completion of the bill.

Mr. President, that is my understanding. Is that the understanding of the ranking member?

Things are sounding better and better.

Yes.

Amendment No. 4261

Mr. President, in a couple of minutes we will resume work on the Defense authorization bill. This morning we have an order for 90 minutes of debate prior to the two votes related to the minimum wage. Following those votes, Senator Levin will offer an amendment related to Iraq on which there will be 5 hours of debate. Many Senators have expressed a desire to speak during that time, and we may be able to set up blocks of controlled time in order to line up speakers. Following debate on the Levin amendment, we will set that amendment aside and begin debate on Senator Kerry's Iraq language. Although there is no limit for debate on that amendment, we anticipate that we will lock in a debate structure for that amendment as well. This is our second week of consideration of the bill, and last night, to ensure that we will finish the bill in a reasonable time, we filed cloture on the Defense authorization bill. Senators will have until 1 o'clock today to file their first-degree amendments.

With respect to the Iraq language, it is my expectation that we will vote on the Iraq amendments prior to the cloture vote which would occur on Thursday. Senator Warner and Senator Levin have cleared a large number of amendments and will continue to work to clear additional amendments as we go forward. In addition, there will likely be germane amendments debated and voted once cloture is invoked.

Having said that, I look forward to constructive debate throughout the day and evening on the two Iraq amendments before us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, as we resumed consideration of the Defense authorization bill, we have debated two very important amendments on U.S. policy in Iraq.

After the votes on the minimum wage amendments offered by Senators Kennedy and Enzi, there were 5 hours of debate on the amendment on Iraq offered by Senators Levin and Reed. Following this debate, Senator Kerry offered his amendment.

These amendments would call upon the United States to cut and run from Iraq, just when the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people need us the most. It is important for all of us to fully understand the dangerous implications of a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

If we withdraw from Iraq before the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people are capable of defending their new democracy, the terrorists would see this as a vindication of their strategy of intimidation and violence. This would only embolden them to challenge us, as well as our friend and allies, elsewhere in the Middle East, around the world, and even right here at home.

While the new Governmment in Iraq is making substantial progress every day, it is not fully ready to defend itself and provide security for the Iraqi people. If we were to cut and run before Iraq can defend itself, the violence in Iraq would certainly increase. The terrorists could be expected to mount even deadlier attacks against the new Iraqi Governmment and innocent Iraqi civilians. Chaos would result. Bloody civil war would almost certainly follow, as terrorists and rival militias tore the country apart. In the process, they would kill thousands of innocent Iraqis.

In addition, the very unity of Iraq--a unity that we along with our coalition partners and the Iraqi people have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to secure--would be destroyed.

Sectarian violence would tear the country apart. It would split Iraq into segments controlled by terrorists or ethnic and tribal militias. This would allow the terrorists to achieve one of their highest priorities: to turn Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists and a base from which to launch attacks against our friends and allies in the region and even the American homeland.

The terrorists affiliated with bin Laden and Zarqawi have clearly stated their aim of overthrowing moderate governments throughout the Middle East. We therefore would have to worry about close friends that have cooperated with us in the global war on terror, such as Jordan, being transformed into terrorist regimes. The violence and instability that the terrorists seek to sow in Iraq would spread throughout the Middle East.

The terrorists have also demonstrated a strong interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction for use as the ultimate terrorist tool. They seek to obtain these weapons and use them against innocent civilians. Given the presence in Iraq of many of Saddam Hussein's former weapons scientists, an Iraq under the control of terrorists likely would become a safe haven for the covert production of chemical and biological weapons.

President Bush has repeatedly stated that the potential combination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction poses the greatest threat to the United States. The destruction of 9/11 would pale in comparison to the devastation terrorists could inflict with weapons of mass destruction produced in Iraq and covertly slipped across Iraq's porous borders.

Cutting and running from Iraq would allow the threat posed by the combination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to materialize. This is an unacceptable risk to the American people, and we simply cannot allow that to happen.

It is clear that those calling for an early withdrawal of American troops from Iraq fail to understand the potentially catastrophic implications of their proposal. Cutting and running before Iraq can defend itself would pose unacceptable risks to all Americans.

We, our coalition partners, and the Iraqi people have come too far. We cannot turn back now. We must stay until the job is done.

I look forward to today's debate on these amendments, and I urge my colleagues to speak out against the strategy of cutting and running from Iraq. It is a strategy that guarantees failure. And failure in Iraq is not an option.

Mr. President, yesterday, my colleague and friend, Senator Santorum, hosted a bipartisan, bicameral event to evaluate the status of religious freedom in America and around the world. I thank Senator Santorum for his passionate commitment to the cause of religious liberty, as well as my colleagues Norm Coleman and Sam Brownback for their participation.

Religious freedom is the bedrock of our founding principles. Indeed, it is the very first clause of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

As George Washington wrote in his letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May of 1789: ``Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen,

and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.''

We are blessed to live in a country built on freedom of conscience, thought, and action. Waves and waves of hopeful aspirants have flocked to these shores to exercise this basic human right.

But in every era, religious freedom, like all other freedoms, has come under challenge. And in every era, we have been called upon to promote and defend religious liberty here at home and in faraway lands. We do so as a matter of principle. Freedom of conscience and religion is the most basic, fundamental human right. No person should be persecuted, imprisoned or harmed because of their personal faith. But as 9/11 showed us with such terrible force, we also do so as a matter of national security.

I thank Senator Santorum for bringing this topic front and center to Capitol Hill yesterday, along with his distinguished panelists.

We heard from the eminent U.N. Ambassador John Bolton on the gains that are being made around the globe. We also heard from courageous dissidents, including Dr. Wafa Sultan and Eli El-Khoury, who have suffered for their faith and been persecuted for their convictions.

America must remain ever vigilant to the threats, challenges, and opportunities we face. From North Korea to the troubled Middle East, for millions of people, religious liberty is still a fragile hope they look to us to nurture.

It is our duty as Americans and our honor as sons and daughters of the greatest revolution and the ongoing American experiment in ordered liberty and religious freedom.

Mr. President, today we open the Senate with a 30-minute period of morning business. After those statements, we will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. There are now six pending amendments that the chairman and ranking member are reviewing to determine how much debate will be necessary. Yesterday, Senator Levin filed an amendment related to troop withdrawal in Iraq. I understand that amendment may be offered today. I know many Senators will want to participate in that debate. It is my expectation that we will set up blocks of time for debate, perhaps for this afternoon, so that Senators will know of the appropriate time to come to the floor to give their remarks on the amendment. In addition to the pending amendments, other amendments will be offered today. Therefore, we will be voting today on amendments to the Defense authorization bill. The Democratic side of the aisle will have their normal policy meeting today, and we will recess from 12:30 to 2:15. As a reminder to my colleagues, we have scheduled our Republican policy meeting to occur during Wednesday's session instead of today.

Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to comment on the debate that has been underway on the Defense authorization bill. In particular, I want to draw attention to the heroism, courage, and great work of our soldiers on the frontline. Every day they are risking their lives to defend our freedom. They are taking that battle to the enemy so that the enemy does not bring that battle to us on our own soil.

No one would have guessed almost 5 years ago that we would be free from having suffered another major terrorist attack. We have been extraordinarily fortunate. We remember 1993, the World Trade Center attack, Khobar Towers, our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the USS Cole, and then that day on 9/11. We have been safe because of our brave men and women, Americans who are putting their lives on the line to protect this country. Then there was that day on 9/11 where our enemy declared war. They slaughtered innocent citizens right here on American soil. They judged us to be weak, to be vacillating. They believed we would cower in the face of brutality. They were wrong.

Out of the black smoke and ashes of that terrible day, America stood up strong, united, and determined. And after careful deliberation, we answered back. We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, where al-Qaida had trained. We toppled Saddam Hussein, a real and continuing threat to the security of our Nation and to our allies. Since then we have continued the hard work of draining the swamp that nurtured and festered these monsters. It hasn't been easy. The last 3 years have strained our patience as we have watched the terrorists' counterattack. Innocent Iraqis, coalition forces, humanitarians, and journalists have been targeted simply for trying to secure a free and open Iraq. But the enemy's effort to plunge Iraq into chaos will not succeed.

Slowly, freedom is gaining ground. The Iraqi people are emerging from three decades of brutal repression and claiming their right to stand among democratic nations. Last year, millions of Iraqis defied the threats of Abu al-Zarqawi and streamed to the polls in three national elections. Iraq's Sunni population participated in greater numbers each time. On June 8, the new democratically elected Prime Minister Jawad al-Maliki named the last three members of his Cabinet--the Ministers of Defense, Interior and Security--thereby completing formation of his unity government. What huge progress. The new government is committed to facing the challenges of terrorism and corruption and to move Iraq's fledgling

democracy forward on the path to freedom. I believe they will succeed as long as we do not break faith with them.

It was a week ago the Iraqis formally asked the United Nations Security Council to maintain the U.S.-led coalition with these words:

While great achievements have been gained by the people of

Iraq in the realm of political development, the continuation

of the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq remains

necessary and essential for our security.

Far from the rhetoric that is being used by some today, the Iraqi people want us, and they need us to help them. If we don't, if we break our promise and cut and run, as some would have us do, the implications could be catastrophic. Not only would it be a dishonor to our Americans, a dishonor of historic proportions, the threat to America's national security would be potentially disastrous. If large parts of Iraq were to fall into the hands of terrorists, there would be no end to the threats we might face. Iraq could become a terrorist base for attacking us and undermining our allies. Many of Saddam Hussein's weapons scientists are still in Iraq, and the destruction of 9/11 would pale in comparison to the devastation terrorists could inflict with weapons of mass destruction produced in Iraq using their experience.

Leaving Iraq to the terrorists is simply not an option. Surrendering is not a solution. Zarqawi's elimination on June 7 was a profound victory. Coalition forces have captured or killed 161 of Zarqawi's leaders, key elements in the command and control of the terrorist network. Iraqi troops and the Iraqi people are working ever more diligently to defeat the terrorist enemy. In July of 2004, there were no operational Iraqi Army division or brigade headquarters. In just 2 years, 2 divisions, 14 brigades, and 57 battalions control their own area of responsibility. That is progress. Also, 28 authorized national police units are in the fight with 10 battalions in the lead. Over 254,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces are taking the battle to the enemy. These are just a few of the positive indicators. With our help, Iraq is making steady and impressive progress every day.

America has faced great challenges before. We rose up to defeat Naziism, one of the ugliest ideologies in modern history. It took terrible sacrifice and great pain, but we defeated the Nazi scourge. Through the Marshall plan, we rebuilt a continent of democratic and independent states. For the next four decades, we battled the Cold War against Communism, a long battle we ultimately won. In the great wars of the 20th century, our ideals carried us through even when victory seemed far from assured. Young American men and women who had never seen the world came to be its bravest defenders.

As we continue the war on terror, we cannot retreat, we cannot surrender, we cannot go wobbly. The price is far too high. The strength we show now is the security we earn for the future. As the President has explained, America's troops will stand down as the Iraqi troops stand up. They are gaining strength every day. By keeping a steady eye on the ultimate goal, by having flexibility and patience, I am confident we will succeed. No less than America's security depends on it.

I yield the floor.