[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 111 (Thursday, July 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9076-S9124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1585, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2008 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Nelson (NE) (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Nelson (FL) amendment No. 2013 (to amendment No. 2012), to 
     change the enactment date.
       Levin amendment No. 2087 (to amendment No. 2011), to 
     provide for a reduction and transition of U.S. forces in 
     Iraq.
       Reed amendment No. 2088 (to amendment No. 2087), to change 
     the enactment date.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement that 
was entered into last night, a Senator designated on the Republican 
side was to offer an amendment at this time and then I was going to, or 
someone designated by me was going to offer a second-degree amendment.
  I want Senator Graham to say what the intention was on that side--
that intention has been changed--and then I will comment on what he has 
to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from South Carolina. That 
is our understanding. We understand what his intent was. We both have 
been involved in some discussions on this matter. Our staffs are 
involved in some discussions on this matter.
  Senator Graham has indicated his willingness to hold off offering his 
amendment at this time, with the understanding that he will have an 
opportunity at a later time to offer that amendment, and these 
discussions will continue in the interim.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from 
Alabama has an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


         Amendment No. 2024, as modified, to Amendment No. 2011

  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and I 
thank him for his leadership as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee 
on the Armed Services Committee, of which I am the ranking member. I 
want to assert again that I have been pleased to work with him and 
value his judgment and insight, and value his insight with regard to 
amendment No. 2024, which I have filed a modification to, and I now ask 
that amendment, as modified, be called up at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes amendment 
     numbered 2024, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1218. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES ON PROTECTION OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES AND ITS ALLIES AGAINST IRANIAN 
                   BALLISTIC MISSILES.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that Iran maintains a nuclear 
     program in continued defiance of the international community 
     while developing ballistic missiles of increasing 
     sophistication and range that pose a threat to both the 
     forward-deployed forces of the United States and to its North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in Europe; and 
     which eventually could pose a threat to the United States 
     homeland.
       (b) Policy of the United States.--It is the policy of the 
     United States--
       (1) to develop and deploy, as soon as technologically 
     possible, in conjunction with its allies and other nations 
     whenever possible, effective defense against the threat from 
     Iran described in subsection (a)(1) that will provide 
     protection for the United States, its friends, and its North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization allies; and
       (2) to proceed in the development of such response in a 
     manner such that any missile defenses fielded by the United 
     States in Europe are integrated with or complementary to 
     missile defense capabilities that might be fielded by the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Europe.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Kyl, Dole, Inhofe, and Thune be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9077]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I don't know if my colleague from 
Florida wants to make a comment now.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. After the Senator.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to yield to Senator Nelson if he wishes 
to share some thoughts.
  The amendment offered today, simply put, acknowledges that we have a 
growing threat to peace and security that arises from Iran's nuclear 
and missile program, and this amendment would make it the policy of the 
United States to develop effective defenses against this threat as soon 
as possible.
  The amendment also emphasizes the need to ensure that the defenses we 
deploy are coordinated with existing programs of our NATO allies. A 
number of Senators and Members of the House want to be sure that we 
coordinate with the NATO allies, and this amendment would call for 
that.
  Sadly, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to threaten the United 
States and our allies and that threat must be recognized and 
confronted. My amendment signals the resolve of the United States to do 
that. At a time when Iran is openly threatening to destroy the United 
States and our various allies--and is providing weapons, such as 
explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, which we have pretty clearly 
traced to Iran today, and that are killing our soldiers in Iraq and 
Afghanistan--demonstrating our understanding of the seriousness of 
their threat and their purpose is critical for us to have clear 
thinking and sound policy. So I appreciate my colleagues, such as 
Senator Lieberman, who spoke eloquently and offered an amendment on the 
need to confront Iran's support of worldwide terrorism, which we voted 
on yesterday--in a very strong vote.
  I see missile defense as another facet of confronting and facing this 
threat. Even in the Middle East, where anti-Israel sentiments are all 
too common, Iran is the only country in the Middle East where the 
President openly calls for the destruction of Israel. Shortly after 
taking office in 2005, Ahmadi-Nejad, the President, rallied supporters 
at a conference, and the conference was called ``A World Without 
Zionism.'' In that speech he said, ``The current skirmishes in the 
occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of 
years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said''--
and here he is referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini--``Israel must be 
wiped off the map.''
  But Israel isn't the only target of Iran's crash program to develop 
long-range missiles with nuclear warheads--long-range missiles they are 
now developing. He is developing also nuclear warheads. In the same 
speech Ahmadi-Nejad was quoted as saying this: ``Anybody who recognizes 
Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.''
  That includes, of course, the United States--us--and our allies in 
Europe and the Middle East. For anyone who doubts that Ahmadi-Nejad's 
threat was meant to include America, he has also been quoted as saying 
this: ``And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon 
experience a world without the United States and Zionism.''
  A world without the United States. It does not get much more 
straightforward than that. Arnaud de Borchgrave, an experienced world 
observer and editor at large of the Washington Times and United Press 
International, had a piece in the Washington Times yesterday, and he 
pointed out some of the examples of the kind of extremism, real 
extremism, we have seen from the Iranian leadership.
  Now, let me say this: The Iranian people are good people. They have 
quite an educated population, certainly for that area of the world. 
There is no need and no justification for Iranian leadership to betray 
those people, the people of that historic nation, with these kinds of 
policies. In truth, President Ahmadi-Nejad and certain clerics are 
damaging the history, the economy, the people, and the reputation of 
Iran. There is no reason for this. It should not continue. 
Unfortunately, it is reality. And while we can hope for change, change 
does not seem likely in the short run.
  While the people of Iran may, and I think do, oppose this extremism, 
the President and the extremists, certain mullahs and others, seem to 
be firmly in control of the country and determined to pursue a radical 
and extremist ideology and policy. It is not only a tragedy for Iran 
that this is occurring but for the whole world.
  Mr. de Borchgrave lists some of the statements that are more than 
sufficient to alert the world to the dangers and the intentions of the 
leaders of Iran today. This is what he wrote yesterday, and I quote:

       Whether Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad said he wants 
     to wipe Israel off the map is still contested, even by anti-
     mullah Iranian-Americans. But that he wants to wipe out the 
     Jewish state, there can be no doubt. As he completes his 
     visits to every Iranian town, the collection of his 
     pronunciamentos is edifying reading.
       Culled from a wide variety of sources, ranging from the 
     Agence France Presse, the French national news agency, to the 
     London Daily Telegraph, to the Suddeutsche Zeitung Online, to 
     France's Le Monde and Liberation, Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad spells out 
     the target and the strategy: ``This regime--here he is 
     talking about Israel--will one day disappear. The Zionist 
     regime is a rotten tree that will be blown away by one storm. 
     The countdown for the destruction of Israel has begun. 
     Zionists are the personification of Satan.''

  He goes on to say:

       In the case of any unwise move by the fake regime of 
     Israel, Iran's response will be so destructive and quick the 
     regime will regret its move forever. The west invented the 
     myth of the massacre of the Jews (in World War II) and placed 
     it above Allah, religions, and profits.

  So he continues to assert that the Holocaust was a myth, invented by 
the West.
  What about his strategic plan?

       We don't shy away from declaring Islam is ready to rule the 
     world. The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon reach 
     the entire world. Our revolution's main mission is to pave 
     the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, a 
     5-year-old boy who vanished 1,100 years ago and who will lead 
     the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but not before 
     the planet is first convulsed by death and destruction.

  He goes on to say:

       Soon, Islam will become the dominating force in the world 
     occupying first place in the number of followers among other 
     religions. Is there a craft more beautiful, more sublime, 
     more divine than the craft of giving yourself to martyrdom 
     and becoming holy? Do not doubt, Allah will prevail and Islam 
     will conquer mountaintops of the entire world. Islam can 
     recruit hundreds of suicide bombers a day. Suicide is an 
     invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the 
     way and they enlighten our future. The will to commit suicide 
     is one of the best ways of life.

  This is the President of a country that is steadfastly moving forward 
to develop nuclear weapons and steadfastly advancing its ability to 
launch intercontinental ballistic missiles.
  What does he say about nuclear power?

       By the grace of Allah we will be a nuclear power and Iran 
     does not give a damn about the IEA, the International Energy 
     Agency, their demands to freeze enrichment of nuclear fuel. 
     Iran does not give a damn about resolutions.

  That is the U.N. Resolutions. Those are his words. There are other 
comments. He goes on to say, as I indicated earlier, at this conference 
on the world without Zionism--the President of Iran said:

       To those who doubt, to those who say it is not possible, I 
     say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is 
     both possible and feasible.

  You can say this is an exaggeration. You can say this is not 
realistic. But I suggest that is the repeated statements of the leader 
of a very dangerous nation, a nation with real capabilities. They are 
developing a nuclear capability and an expanding and growing missile 
capability. I think yesterday Senator Lieberman, after the vote on his 
amendment, summed it up very well. This is what he said:

       The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers, to our allies, to 
     our national security is a truth that cannot be wished or 
     waved away. Congress today began the process of confronting 
     it.

  We also need to take one more step in that process by making clear 
that we are not going to leave our Nation or our allies in Europe 
vulnerable to any missile threats from Iran.
  Most Senators were in the room a few weeks ago when the Director of 
National Intelligence, ADM Mike McConnell, gave us a classified 
briefing and described in detail the threat posed by Iran. Having 
received that briefing, I think few of us would doubt that Iran does 
pose a threat to the security of the United States and our allies. It 
is a threat to us. It is not something we need to be intimidated about. 
We don't need to back down to Iran. Militarily

[[Page S9078]]

there is no doubt in the mind of this Senator or any objective 
observer's mind what would happen if a conflict developed here. But we 
need to be realistic, we need to seek to avoid conflict, but we need to 
pursue policies that will make sure we don't allow our citizens to fall 
under a risk of a nuclear missile attack.
  So they are pursuing, under Ahmadi-nejad's leadership, the means to 
kill millions of people with the single push of a button. When Iran's 
Shehab-3 missiles are paraded through the streets of Iran, they are 
draped with banners stating, ``Israel must be wiped off the map.'' That 
is what they put on their missiles. With a range of 1,300 kilometers 
and a payload capacity of over 700 kilograms, the Shehab-3 has the 
capacities to implement Ahmadi-Nejad's genocidal agenda. Iran is also 
working hard to develop missiles that can reach Europe and the States. 
The Shehab-4 is well along in development and will reportedly be able 
to reach most of continental Europe. The Shehab-5 and Shehab-6 have 
also been discussed in open sources. They are developing those advanced 
missiles. These sources claim these models will have the capacity to 
reach the eastern seaboard of the United States.
  Iran's ability to develop nuclear warheads for those missiles are 
proceeding apace as well. In April, in a speech at the Natanz nuclear 
enrichment facility, there in Iran, Ahmadi-Nejad stated:

       I declare that as of today our dear country has joined the 
     nuclear club of nations and can produce nuclear fuel on an 
     industrial scale.

  International Atomic Energy Agency later confirmed that Iranian 
enrichment capabilities were developing rapidly while our knowledge and 
understanding of their nuclear program was decreasing. This uncertainty 
is very disturbing.
  Yesterday, the Washington Post reported the construction of an 
underground tunnel complex near its enrichment facilities at Natanz. It 
appears, therefore, that Iran is preparing to protect and hide its 
nuclear capabilities.
  Nothing about Iran's behavior recently suggests that it will use 
these capabilities in a responsible manner. In fact, to the contrary, 
we expect Ahmadinejad to use nuclear-tipped missiles to threaten, 
blackmail, and terrorize the nations that oppose its radical agenda and 
using them, actually using them based on some of the extreme statements 
he has made, cannot be placed out of the question.
  We all remember last March when Iran seized 15 British sailors and 
held them as hostages. Imagine a time in the not-too-distant future 
when Iran could take the whole city of London as a hostage with a 
nuclear threat. According to reports in the Washington Post, the 
intelligence community assesses that Iran's ICBMs and its nuclear 
weapons capability will both mature in 2015. That is not that far away. 
As a result, the cities of the eastern seaboard and of Europe are 
expected to face the threat of nuclear attack from Iran in less than 8 
years.
  Keep in mind that 2015 is the midpoint of the estimated range. Iran's 
capability could come online in 2017, later, or even by 2013, if things 
proceed faster than expected. That may seem like a long way away, but 
an adequate defense will take a long time to build and we need to start 
now. According to the Missile Defense Agency, even if Congress fully 
funded the European defense site--which I hope that we will. We refer 
to it as the ``third site,'' and it is funded every year--the system 
would not be up and running until 2013. Any delay to that schedule--
which could happen for a number of reasons--could open up a window of 
vulnerability during which Iran would have the means to attack us and 
our allies, perhaps with nuclear weapons, and we will have no means of 
defending the American people or our allies against them.

  The good news is we have it in our power to prevent this window of 
vulnerability and keep it from opening if we commit as a nation to 
doing so. My amendment represents an opportunity for the Senate to go 
on record with such a commitment. An effective missile defense, which 
we would promptly begin to deploy, could convince the Iranian 
leadership that developing such missiles for their nuclear weapons is a 
futile undertaking. Perhaps we may have already missed, however, that 
opportunity to actually deter them in this way, making it all the more 
important that we get moving on development of the means to defend 
ourselves and our allies.
  This amendment is more than about setting U.S. policy on missile 
defense, it is about sending a message to the rest of the world, our 
friends and enemies alike, that we take this Iranian threat seriously 
and we intend to stand up to it. The debate over the third site is 
being watched with great interest around the world. Some may be drawing 
conclusions about our commitment to meet this threat head on and 
doubting that we are committed. In fact, I will note that we 
effectively deployed and continue to upgrade a national missile defense 
system that can meet the North Korean missile threat, which is somewhat 
more advanced than Iran's but not a lot. We know we have this 
capability and we should do it with Iran also.
  Imagine sitting in Mr. Ahmadi-nejad's shoes today. He provides 
sophisticated weapons to our enemies in Iraq, killing hundreds of 
American troops in the process. In response, one of our colleagues 
proposed legislation to prohibit the President from attacking Iran 
without congressional authorization. Ahmadinejad rushes headlong toward 
a nuclear weapon and long-range delivery capability and both the Senate 
and the House cut funding for missile defenses that could neutralize 
the threat. Ahmadi-Nejad must not feel like his bluster and threats 
will be effective.
  They will not be. Imagine the conclusions that Vladimir Putin is 
drawing from those media reports. In February of 2007, Mr. Putin and 
the Russian Army Chief of Staff, Yury Baluyevsky, threatened to 
unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, 
which prohibits the United States and Russia from deploying arsenals of 
short- and medium-range missiles in Europe. Mr. Putin later suspended 
Russia's obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, 
which historically allowed NATO and the Warsaw Pact to remove much of 
the military personnel and material that was arrayed along Europe's 
central front during the height of the Cold War.
  Finally, in June of this year, Putin directly threatened to focus 
Russia's nuclear arsenal on ``new targets in Europe.'' Putin claimed 
that ``the strategic balance in the world is being upset'' and that 
Russia ``will be creating a system of countering that anti-missile 
system.''
  These threats coincided with Russian tests of an advanced ICBM, the 
RS-24, by Russia.
  It ought not. Of course, any third site in Europe will be ineffective 
against the massive missile capability of Russia. We don't have any 
capability of doing that. We can create a system that will be very 
effective against anything the Iranians can do in the decades to come 
but not Russia. Our plans have no intention of affecting Russia. But we 
also need not be affected by Mr. Putin's bluster or that we be slowed 
down in our legitimate interests in protecting our country and our 
allies from Iranian threats by these kinds of comments from the 
Russians.
  We reduced somewhat--not greatly--but $84 million in funding for the 
third site in Europe. Colleagues felt that money could not be 
effectively spent. They did not believe it was necessary in this year's 
budget. The problem might be that some would conclude the action by our 
committee in taking those steps to trim the budget would be a plan to 
kill missile defenses in Europe.
  Yesterday, an article in the Christian Science Monitor entitled 
``Obstacles Ahead for Missile Defense,'' stated the Senate was opposed 
to building defenses against Iranian missiles, in effect, saying:

       In Washington, the Democratic-controlled Congress appears 
     reluctant to fund the move, scrambling its near-term 
     prospects.

  I don't think that is true. I think there is bipartisan support for 
creating a missile defense system, but a firm belief exists on the part 
of my Democratic colleagues that we should not go so fast that it is 
not done wisely.
  We have reached a proposal in the legislation as written that we can 
live with. However, there has been some confusion as to our seriousness 
in this commitment.

[[Page S9079]]

  In fact, on July 5 the Washington Post ran an article entitled, 
``Senate Panel Faults Missile Defense Plan.'' In the article, the Post 
states:

       Democrats in Congress are building a legislative roadblock 
     for the Bush administration's plan to place elements of a 
     missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

  It is an incorrect perception. It undermines our alliance 
relationships by causing our allies to think we are not committed in a 
serious way to building a missile defense system that would be 
effective against Iranian attacks and be protective of Europe. So I 
think it is therefore incumbent upon us to clarify the Senate's stance.
  The Poles and the Czechs and other NATO allies have all undertaken 
the momentous challenge of winning over their populations to the idea 
of American missile defenses in Europe. They have battled anti-
Americanism, pressure from Europe and Russia, because they value our 
friendship, but more importantly because they realize Europe may soon 
be vulnerable to Iranian nuclear intimidation and potential nuclear 
attack unless steps are taken to develop defenses now.
  I think it would be a slap in the face and unbefitting to our Nation 
if we were to pull the rug out from under these projects after our 
allies have stepped up and been supportive of them. We cannot stand 
idly by, my colleagues, when a madman threatens to destroy the United 
States and to wipe from the map allies of the United States, then 
defies the international community by developing the means to carry out 
these threats.
  We are the most powerful military in the world, but some people doubt 
our seriousness and our commitment. In the Middle East, in particular, 
this perception of weakness can be a fatal error. So I think it is 
appropriate for us to make clear to Iran and to Russia and to our 
allies worldwide that we understand that the Iranian danger is clear 
and present.
  We must leave no uncertainty in anyone's mind that we intend to 
defend ourselves and our allies from this threat. Our security, the 
security of our allies, and the credibility of our commitments are all 
at stake. I will just add that while the Iranian actions are very 
troubling, they should be taken very seriously. Iran's words cannot be 
ignored.
  I would say one thing further. We have no reason to be intimidated by 
Iran. We have the capability of defending ourselves, our military, and 
our interests, and the leaders in Iran need to know this. This Senator 
is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to defend our national 
interests.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, with regard to the Sessions 
amendment, it would establish a U.S. policy concerning defense against 
Iranian ballistic missiles stating that the United States will develop 
and deploy effectively defenses against Iranian ballistic missiles as 
soon as technologically possible.
  I think everyone agrees with that idea. I would suggest that this is 
effectively our policy today, and, indeed, is the policy of the bill 
and is so stated in the bill before us, that we are already developing 
and deploying a number of missile defense programs to provide such 
effective defenses.
  For example, the United States has already deployed the Patriot PAC-3 
system to the region to provide defensive capability for our forward-
deployed forces in the region. We are also developing and deploying the 
AEGIS BMD system, and we are developing the THAAD system. All of these 
systems will provide effective defense capability against Iran's 
existing and near-term missile capabilities.
  However, we do not have sufficient capability today with these 
systems to provide the level of protection that our combatant 
commanders need. Our senior military commanders readily acknowledge 
that fact, including the combatant commander of the U.S. Strategic 
Command, General Cartwright. He is responsible for global integrated 
missile defense. He readily acknowledges that fact.
  For that reason, the bill before the Senate authorizes an additional 
$315 million to increase or accelerate these three crucial near-term 
missile defense programs. And what they do is to provide increased 
protection for our forward-deployed forces, our allies, and our friends 
in the region.
  In other words, we are already putting this policy in effect. That is 
the true measure of our determination to provide effective defenses 
against Iran's ballistic missiles.
  Now, I understand the Republican leader wants to make a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield 1 minute for my 
response?
  I thank Senator Nelson for his comments. I agree with him that, 
properly read, our legislation does what he says. But I even had a 
military person think that perhaps we had done something to weaken our 
commitment. I think others, such as the Washington Post, may have 
overinterpreted some of the things that are in that language. I believe 
this would be a good way to clarify our policy. I thank him for his 
leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before I speak on the amendment 
concerning the withdrawal from Iraq offered by Senator Levin, I would 
like to make a few comments about the benchmarks report required by the 
supplemental bill that was signed in May and released by the President 
just this morning.
  We knew when the Senate passed the conference report that according 
to the legislation we were requiring a benchmark report in July and a 
benchmark report in September. Why were these dates important? First, 
we knew that July was important because the Baghdad security plan is 
now fully manned, something that was achieved less than 1 month ago.
  Congress wanted to send a clear signal to the Iraqi Government that 
full cooperation and sacrifice in executing the Baghdad security plan 
was imperative and that the hard work of political compromise must 
begin. We have done that.
  Second, General Petraeus informed the Senate that he and Ambassador 
Crocker would provide an assessment of the counterinsurgency plan to 
the President, as we all know, in September. Having heard that, the 
Senate thought it reasonable that we would be provided the same 
assessment and that we could form a reasoned legislative response to 
that report.
  What have we learned? We have learned that progress is mixed, that 
many of our military tasks assigned to the military have been achieved, 
and that we have not seen sufficient progress on the political 
benchmarks. The Congress decided in May that 1 month of a fully manned 
surge was an insufficient period to call the Petraeus plan a success or 
a failure. Certainly, the young soldiers and marines risking their 
lives today on the streets of Baghdad and Ramadi would agree, and they 
deserve our patience.
  Some of our colleagues have quite reasonably refrained from drafting 
new amendments that would revisit the actions taken by this Senate back 
in May until they have at least reviewed the benchmarks report 
delivered just today.
  I would encourage my colleagues to review the report, as I intend to, 
and to hear what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have to say in 
September. There is much at stake and, frankly, they deserve to be 
heard.


                           Amendment No. 2087

  Now on another matter, Mr. President, the Senate will soon take up 
the Levin amendment. But before we do, I think it is important that we 
take a look at what it says.
  The Levin amendment says:

       The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of 
     the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 
     days after the date of enactment of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  Now, exactly what would this reduction involve--10,000 troops, 
20,000, 50,000, all of them? Can we at least get maybe a ballpark 
figure? The Levin amendment does not quite give us one. It only says 
U.S. forces will have a ``limited presence'' after this reduction. What 
is a ``limited presence''?
  Does it mean limiting our presence in Al Anbar, which everyone agrees 
has been a stunning success in our fight against al-Qaida? Does it mean 
limiting our presence in Baghdad? In the

[[Page S9080]]

Kurdish areas to the north? What does ``limited presence'' mean? The 
Levin amendment does not say. We are left to guess.
  The Levin amendment says the members of our Armed Forces will only be 
free to protect the United States and coalition personnel and 
infrastructure, to train Iraqi security forces, and to engage in 
targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida. What does 
``targeted'' mean? The Levin amendment does not tell us.
  It says:

       The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of 
     United States forces to a limited presence and missions by 
     April 30.

  But how will we know when he has completed the transition? And how 
many forces would have to be moved in order for the Secretary of 
Defense to comply with the bill's mandate to complete it? The amendment 
is silent on that question as well.
  If there were more to this amendment, I might have more questions, 
but there is not. That is it. The supposedly groundbreaking policy 
shift that the Democratic majority has been circling around is nothing 
more than a page and a half of vague policy proposals; in fact, an 
empty shell. Do they really expect us to send this to conference and to 
see what might happen? That is wise war policy? That is a responsible 
alternative to the current policy? That is the alternative they give us 
to the Petraeus plan, a doctrine that has been widely acclaimed as the 
last word on counterinsurgency, which is showing signs of success less 
than a month after it was fully manned?
  Look, Democrats and Republicans voted to go into Iraq based on the 
same intelligence the President had. It is dishonest and it is 
unhelpful to turn every debate on this war into a discussion of how and 
why we entered it in the first place.
  More than 150,000 American troops are there. They are now fighting 
the same group that attacked and killed thousands of innocent Americans 
on 
9/11, who attacked many others before and since, and who are plotting 
to kill thousands more even as we speak. There is one thing we should 
be concerned about in discussing this war, and it is the one thing we 
never hear about from the other side; that is, inning the fight against 
al-Qaida.
  Now, the President has recognized that previous strategy failed to 
focus on the insurgency and al-Qaida. He changed course. Now we are 
fighting them head on with the Petraeus plan. At full manning, this 
strategy has been in place for less than a month. We will get a report 
on its progress in September. What sense does it make to short-circuit 
that strategy right now, especially when the only alternative we are 
getting from the other side is a page and a half of questions.
  Yesterday, the spokesman for the Multi-National Force in Iraq gave us 
an update on al-Qaida's operations in Iraq. He reminded us that al-
Qaida members refer to Iraq as their central front. This is al-Qaida 
members who say it is their central front. He told us al-Qaida and its 
affiliates are the greatest source of the spectacular attacks that are 
fueling sectarian violence in Iraq.
  He told us that in recent months, more and more Iraqis have started 
to reject al-Qaida and its ideology and are finally fighting back. 
Troops are getting good, actionable intelligence from these people 
which they are using to disrupt al-Qaida networks and safe havens in 
and around Baghdad. He showed us a chart that illustrated some of our 
recent successes against the enemy. Our Armed Forces in Iraq killed or 
captured 26 high-level al-Qaida leaders in May and June alone. Eleven 
of them were emirs who were city or local al-Qaida leaders; seven were 
smuggling foreigners, weapons, and money into Iraq; five were cell 
leaders; and three were leaders of IED networks. Last month, our troops 
uncovered an al-Qaida media hub near Samarra. They have concluded that 
between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by 
foreign-born terrorists who have killed some 4,000 Iraqi citizens just 
over the last 6 months.
  These are some of the concrete realities on the ground. This is what 
is actually happening, not what people over here seem to be talking 
about. We are fighting al-Qaida head-on, and we are making progress. 
Would the Levin amendment force us to turn our backs on al-Qaida again? 
We have no idea. It really doesn't say. But it could. That is something 
we should all keep in mind as we begin this debate, whether we are 
willing to go with this or with the Petraeus plan.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the provisions in the 2008 
Defense authorization bill that seek to prevent premature deployment of 
missile defenses in Europe, and I continue to have serious concerns 
about the operational effectiveness and cost of these technologies. I 
voted for the amendment offered by Senator Sessions because Iran may 
develop the capacity to threaten our allies with nuclear weapons and 
because the amendment supports development of an ``effective defense'' 
when it is ``technologically possible.'' I will continue encouraging 
the administration to work with the international community to engage 
directly with Iran.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Sessions amendment No. 
2024, as modified, be set aside until 4 p.m. today and that no 
amendment be in order to the Sessions amendment; that at 4 p.m. today, 
there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between 
Senator Sessions and myself or our designees; that upon the use of that 
time, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed 
to vote in relation to the Sessions amendment, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I 
would like to clarify with the chairman that we intend to not only take 
up the wounded warrior amendment but also, if there are other 
amendments, if we debate and discuss wounded warrior and there is time 
for that--we want to tell our colleagues that there are some 98 pending 
amendments that have not been addressed as of yet, and we would like to 
address those as soon as possible since we will obviously have a very 
busy week on this bill next week as well as today. We have 4\1/2\ hours 
between now and the next vote.
  My other question to the distinguished chairman is, Is it his desire 
that we perhaps have another amendment that could be voted on at that 
time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. It is our 
hope that we can complete the debate on the wounded warriors 
legislation. I did intend to offer that as soon as this unanimous 
consent agreement is agreed to. Those who wish to speak on the wounded 
warrior legislation we invite to come to the floor in the next few 
hours. If the debate on that legislation is completed before 4 o'clock, 
the Senator from Arizona is correct, we would then, hopefully, have a 
vote on the wounded warriors amendment immediately after the vote on 
the Sessions amendment. If debate on the wounded warriors legislation 
is completed before 4 o'clock, as he indicated, there would then be an 
opportunity for another amendment to be offered as designated by the 
ranking member. I believe, in terms of alternating, it is now our turn. 
I will be offering, on behalf of many Senators, on a bipartisan basis 
the wounded warrior legislation. Then it is our understanding the next 
amendment would be from the Republican side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I understand there 
were already several amendments to the wounded warrior legislation, 
which have been accepted on both sides, which we will be presenting. I 
would ask the indulgence of the chairman to make a brief statement 
before we take up the wounded warrior amendment bill. Would that be OK? 
It is not on wounded warrior.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection whatsoever to Senator McCain being 
recognized immediately after our UC is accepted--if it is--for a 
statement. Then it would be the understanding that I

[[Page S9081]]

would then be recognized to introduce the wounded warrior amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from 
Michigan. I know he shares my concern about the work that needs to be 
done in the next few days to try to get this bill completed. We do urge 
our colleagues to come forth with relevant amendments. As I mentioned, 
there are at this time, obviously, a number of amendments my colleagues 
will want considered and debated, including two very big amendments on 
Iraq, the Salazar-Alexander amendment, as well as the Reed-Levin 
amendment which I am sure will take up considerable time. Before we 
move to the wounded warrior bill, which I praise for its bipartisanship 
and its effort to bring together both sides of the aisle to address one 
of the most compelling issues of our time, and that is the treatment of 
the men and women who are serving in the military--I will have more 
remarks about that later--I would like to draw my colleagues' attention 
to an editorial that ran last Sunday in the New York Times titled ``The 
Road Home.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have that editorial printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 8, 2007]

                             The Road Home

       It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any 
     more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly 
     exit.
       Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, 
     waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying 
     to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by 
     invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global 
     opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country 
     afterward.
       At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq's 
     government, army, police and economic structures, the United 
     States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. 
     Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, 
     unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had 
     neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued 
     against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some 
     chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.
       While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising 
     breakthroughs--after elections, after a constitution, after 
     sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came 
     and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic 
     Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that 
     Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is 
     president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his 
     cause was, it is lost.
       The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable 
     of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score 
     settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave 
     more like partisan militias. Additional military forces 
     poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change 
     anything.
       Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American 
     soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the 
     nation's alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous 
     diversion from the life-and-death struggle against 
     terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, 
     and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise 
     application of American power and principles.
       A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months 
     ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on 
     the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When 
     Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from 
     the war should be at the top of its agenda.
       That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans 
     must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be 
     even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There 
     could be reprisals against those who worked with American 
     forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially 
     destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran 
     and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most 
     important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from 
     which terrorist activity could proliferate.
       The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the 
     United Nations and America's allies must try to mitigate 
     those outcomes--and they may fail. But Americans must be 
     equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq 
     will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious 
     discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and 
     meet some of the big challenges that will arise.
       The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of 
     tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out 
     safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to 
     Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. 
     Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to 
     secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are 
     organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The 
     exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on 
     reality and backed by adequate resources.
       The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in 
     the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use 
     bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster 
     and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, 
     but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering 
     part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.
       Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is 
     probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, 
     and the target date set, now.
       Despite President Bush's repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no 
     significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave 
     it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.
       This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, 
     where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda's 
     leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against 
     terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American 
     troops.
       And it created a new front where the United States will 
     have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local 
     allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by 
     international terrorists. The military will need resources 
     and bases to stanch this self-inflicted wound for the 
     foreseeable future.
       The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds 
     to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon 
     could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and 
     its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging 
     points.
       There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving 
     troops in Iraq might make it too easy--and too tempting--to 
     get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that 
     Washington's real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. 
     Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those 
     nations' governments.
       The White House should make this choice after consultation 
     with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose 
     opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The 
     bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage 
     effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in 
     Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.
       One of Mr. Bush's arguments against withdrawal is that it 
     would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and 
     it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into 
     separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American 
     troops are not going to stop that from happening.
       It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm 
     withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq's political leaders 
     and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could 
     spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national 
     reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused 
     to act on.
       But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic 
     proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should 
     use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its 
     allies and Iraq's neighbors to help achieve a negotiated 
     solution.
       Iraq's leaders--knowing that they can no longer rely on the 
     Americans to guarantee their survival--might be more open to 
     compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with 
     economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis 
     forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion 
     ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to 
     driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.
       The United States military cannot solve the problem. 
     Congress and the White House must lead an international 
     attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must 
     turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and 
     ridiculed as a preface to war.
       There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly 
     in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who 
     have been displaced within their country. Without the active 
     cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq--Turkey, 
     Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria--and the help of 
     other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the 
     suffering, massive flows of refugees--some with ethnic and 
     political resentments--could spread Iraq's conflict far 
     beyond Iraq's borders.
       Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting 
     refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with 
     refugees, need more international help. That, of course, 
     means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and 
     should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large 
     share of the costs, but should also lead international 
     efforts, perhaps a donors' conference, to raise money for the 
     refugee crisis.
       Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are 
     new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not 
     participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager 
     to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of 
     humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this 
     administration has never shown. And, however angry they were 
     with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations 
     should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. 
     To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to 
     ignore.
       The United States has the greatest responsibilities, 
     including the admission of many more refugees for permanent 
     resettlement.

[[Page S9082]]

     The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of 
     Iraqis of courage and good will--translators, embassy 
     employees, reconstruction workers--whose lives will be in 
     danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with 
     the Americans.
       One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive 
     meddling in Iraq by its neighbors--America's friends as well 
     as its adversaries.
       Just as Iran should come under international pressure to 
     allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own 
     independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni 
     powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. 
     Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish 
     territories.
       For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must 
     drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. 
     Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with 
     influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is 
     a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq's 
     borders.
       President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used 
     demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end 
     to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and 
     chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has 
     already happened--the result of this unnecessary invasion and 
     the incompetent management of this war.
       This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush 
     to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist 
     that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as 
     we can manage--with as much effort as possible to stop the 
     chaos from spreading.

  Mr. McCAIN. It is worth spending a few moments to discuss this 
editorial because it is not often that one of America's flagship papers 
declares as lost a war which 160,000 brave American soldiers are trying 
mightily to win.
  Beginning with its first line in this remarkable editorial, ``It is 
time for the United States to leave Iraq without any more delay than 
the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit,'' the Times editorial 
advocates a precipitous withdrawal of American forces. It does so 
conceding that such a withdrawal is likely to increase the chaos and 
bloodshed in Iraq, not decrease it, and that a redeployment could 
prompt ``reprisals, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide.'' A 
remarkable statement that a newspaper that frequently calls for the 
United States to bring its national power to bear for moral purposes, 
not the least of which in the Darfur region of Sudan, could so easily 
throw out consequences that are so terrible.
  In the opinion of the New York Times, apparently genocide is not 
worth fighting to prevent, nor is it worth fighting to prevent 
``potentially destabilizing refugee flows'' hitting Jordan and Syria or 
to stop Iran from filling the power vacuum left behind by our departure 
or disrupting a likely terrorist sanctuary. No, none of these things 
are worth fighting for in the Times' opinion because it has concluded 
that ``keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.''
  This misunderstanding clouds the entirety of the editorial. The Times 
appears to believe that because things have been mismanaged since 2003 
and because violence remains at unacceptably high levels, things simply 
can't get worse, so we should withdraw and at least save ourselves. But 
this is sheer folly. Things in Iraq, however bad they have been and 
remain, could get far, far worse. Anyone who recalls Cambodia or Rwanda 
or any of the other places that have seen killing on a massive scale 
knows just how terrible violence can be when it spirals out of control.
  The consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq include 
emboldening terrorists, inducing a wider regional war, fanning the 
flames of a Sunni-Shia conflict, putting millions of lives at risk, and 
destabilizing an area key to America's strategic interests.
  The editorial States bluntly, ``Whatever [the President's] cause was, 
it is lost,'' because ``additional military forces poured into the 
Baghdad region have failed to change anything.'' That is a remarkable 
statement, a remarkable statement. ``Additional military forces poured 
into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.'' I just came 
back from a visit. I know I have been pilloried for saying that there 
has been progress in Iraq. Well, they can pillory General Petraeus and 
they can pillory their own reporters who have clearly pointed out that 
there have been measurements of success--and a long, long way to go, 
but the fact is, there has been some success.
  The fact is, in Baghdad, as General Petraeus attests, it is 
demonstrably untrue that additional military forces poured into the 
Baghdad region have failed to change anything. In Baghdad, U.S. 
military and Iraqi forces are establishing joint security stations and 
patrolling the city together to manage violence. Since January, 
sectarian violence has fallen. The total number of car bombings and 
suicide attacks has declined in May and June, and the number of Iraqis 
coming forward with information is rising.
  The President offered an assessment today. There are some areas of 
success. There are some areas of no movement, and there are some areas 
of failure, particularly where the Iraqi Government is concerned. We 
should know that. In an area south of Bagdad, commanders report 
increasing numbers of local tribes siding with the coalition against 
al-Qaida and similar effects north of the city.
  This editorial makes the breathtaking assertion that the war in Iraq 
is ``a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against 
terrorists.'' Someone from the editorial board must have neglected to 
inform our troops on the ground, who, when I visited them last week in 
Baghdad and Anbar, spent several hours briefing me on their 
counterterrorism operations. The editors must have also neglected to 
speak with General Petraeus, who has called Iraq ``the central front of 
al-Qaida's global campaign.''
  In case terrorists remain in Iraq and seek to plan attacks outside 
the country, the Times has an answer. The United States can set up 
bases in Kuwait and Qatar and even in northern Iraq because:

       . . . the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective 
     raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq.

  Yet I wonder whether the Times has thought through any of the 
logistical issues associated with waging a counterterrorism effort from 
a neighboring country. Do we send American counterterrorism teams into 
Iraq for these operations? Do they remain in place? How are they 
supplied? We have seen for 3\1/2\ years that such efforts are much less 
successful when our troops are confined to forward operating bases than 
when our soldiers are deployed among the population, in the cities. I 
can hardly imagine how difficult it would be to wage the same struggle 
not from forward operating bases but from a neighboring nation.
  These troops would not be needed to help stop an incipient civil war 
because, as the Times tells us, ``that war is raging, right now.'' Iraq 
may fragment into separate states, the editorial goes on, but 
``American troops are not going to stop that from happening.''
  Well, a couple days ago, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari 
explained that the dangers of a quick American pullout from Iraq could 
include a civil war. I suspect the foreign minister means a real, full-
scale civil war, one that dwarfs the violence taking place today. I 
also suspect the foreign minister understands there is no clear 
delineation between sectarian violence, whether or not it constitutes 
civil war, and terrorist activity. Al-Qaida bombed the mosque in Samara 
in a deliberate attempt to foment sectarian violence. Zarqawi wrote of 
his plans to target the Shia before his own death. Walking away from 
Iraq would not simply leave an ongoing sectarian struggle simmering 
away at its own pace, sealed off from the world. Civil war in Iraq has 
real implications for American national security interests.
  After the withdrawal prompts the terrible consequences that even the 
New York Times foresees, it will be incumbent upon the United States to 
ameliorate the fallout. This, the editorial page tells us, can be done 
by talking to Iran--by talking to Iran--to pressure it to ``allow 
Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future.''
  At a time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons, 
training fighters, providing resources, and helping plan operations to 
kill American soldiers and damage our efforts to bring stability to 
Iraq, I think it is a pretty safe bet that Tehran will not be open to 
many of Washington's entreaties following a withdrawal. The much more 
likely course is that Iran will comfortably step into the power vacuum 
left by a U.S. redeployment. When it does so, though, the Times would 
have Washington ``persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on 
behalf of Sunni Iraqis.'' My

[[Page S9083]]

friends, that would be a tough sell, to put it mildly, if the Iranians 
are in the regional ascendance.
  Perhaps the root of the New York Times' misconception of the war in 
Iraq is crystallized by a sentence in its final paragraph. It expresses 
fierce opposition to ``allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without 
end on purpose.'' ``Allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end 
on purpose.'' I think all of us would oppose any war without end or 
purpose, but this does not describe the conflict in Iraq. We remain in 
Iraq to bring enough security to allow the Government to function in a 
way that will protect the people of Iraq and, as a result, the national 
interests of the United States. That is the purpose and the end goal of 
this war, as I see it.
  But do not take my word for it, Mr. President. Ask the thousands of 
brave men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way every day. 
I had the privilege to once again visit many of them in Iraq last week, 
and I can tell my colleagues they understand the purpose. I wish I 
could say the same of our journalistic friends in New York.
  Mr. President, I wish to remind my colleagues about the statements 
that have been made by various people who are experts on Iraq and are 
respected national security advisers, including people such as Brent 
Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger, and many others who have been involved 
in this issue, many of whom, like General Zinni, were opposed from the 
beginning to the conflict but now believe setting a date for withdrawal 
will be a disaster of monumental consequences.
  I hope the editorial page of the New York Times would listen to some 
of those people. For example, Henry Kissinger, who recently said that 
setting a date for withdrawal will lead to chaos in the region; 
including people such as General Zinni, who had opposed our 
intervention in Iraq to start with, who said setting a date for 
withdrawal would have catastrophic consequences.
  I have seen some interesting op-ed pieces in my time. I have rarely 
seen one that is farther off the mark than the editorial in last 
Sunday's New York Times. I am convinced that if we pursued that course, 
as the editorial leads: that the war is lost, and it is time for the 
United States to leave Iraq without any more delay, and the Pentagon 
needs to organize an orderly exit--is a remarkable statement by one of 
the largest newspapers in America.
  Henry Kissinger--I think we can find wisdom in several suggestions 
put forward by him. But we also should heed his words, as well as many 
others. He is correct to say: ``precipitate withdrawal would produce a 
disaster,'' one that ``would not end the war but shift it to other 
areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia,'' produce greater 
violence among Iraqi factions and ``embolden radical Islamism'' around 
the world.
  My friends, I hope the editorial writers for the New York Times would 
pay attention to Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's deputy chief, who said 
that the United States is merely delaying our ``inevitable'' defeat in 
Iraq, and that ``the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and 
jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory.''
  Their target is not Iraq. Pay attention to their words. Their target 
is the United States of America.
  Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Mus'ab al-
Zarqawi before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: 
establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the jihad wave to the secular 
countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel--none of which will 
commence until the completion of stage one--expel the Americans from 
Iraq.
  If the New York Times editorial board does not pay attention to the 
words of people like me and General Scowcroft and General Zinni and Dr. 
Kissinger, and many other people who are experts, I would hope they 
would pay attention to the words of Zarqawi, Zawahiri, and others who 
have made very clear what their intentions are in Iraq.
  Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor and ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Levin offer the wounded warrior legislation or 
whatever he wants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The senior Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I did not have a chance, because the 
Senator was speaking, to ask the Senator from Arizona if there would be 
any objection if instead of offering the wounded warrior amendment at 
this time that I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a statement 
on an amendment, a different amendment that he intends to offer. I 
think his statement would last 15 minutes or 20 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. How long?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arizona withdraw his 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. McCAIN. I withdraw it. I just wonder how long, again.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 15 or 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator withdraws the unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Michigan to 
amend the request to immediately following the remarks of the Senator 
from North Dakota that then there would be the offering of the wounded 
warrior amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from North Dakota be recognized for up to 20 minutes to speak on an 
amendment that he would intend to offer at a later time, and 
immediately following that I then be recognized to offer the wounded 
warrior legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized for up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Michigan 
and my colleague from Arizona as well.
  I believe my colleague, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, may well 
join me, if he is able to.
  I want to describe an amendment we have filed. We will attempt to 
offer it at some point, but I have filed an amendment, along with my 
colleague, Senator Conrad, and I want to describe it briefly. As I do, 
let me say this: I understand, and have always understood, it is far 
easier, when making a case, to make the negative side than the positive 
side. I understand, and have always understood, it is easier to 
recognize failure than it is to recognize success. I respect everyone's 
views on this issue, this issue of the war in Iraq, the fight against 
terrorism. It is a passionate debate we have in this Chamber and in 
this country. I respect the views of everyone who stands and offers 
their thoughts about what this country ought to do.
  We need to get this right. The future of this country, perhaps the 
future of the world, depends on our ability to get this right. But I 
have been waking up in the mornings and picking up the morning papers 
and seeing statements in the papers that have bothered me a lot.
  I want to mention, as we bring to the floor of the Senate a piece of 
legislation authorizing the spending for our military of $640 billion 
roughly--$640 billion--and we are building anti-ballistic missile 
defense systems, we are building ICBMs, we are building tanks and 
planes and ships, we are doing all these things, and we are spending a 
lot of money--but, even as we do all that, let me review something 
else, if I might.
  It has been 6 years since Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida attacked us 
with 19 people and box cutters, hijacking airplanes loaded with fuel 
and killing innocent Americans--thousands of them.
  Six years since those attacks. A long time.
  It has been 6 long years, and yet Osama bin Laden is still free 
today. He has not been brought to justice.
  It has been 6 long years, and al-Qaida is stronger today than it has 
been in years, according to all of the reports recently released.
  It has been 6 years, and al-Qaida is now rebuilding its terrorist 
training camps, along with the Taliban, in a safe harbor.
  It has been 6 years, and they are reconstituting their ability to 
attack us. Yes, al-Qaida and the Taliban are reconstituting their 
operational capability in a safe hideaway in Pakistan. It is called a 
``secure hideaway in Pakistan'' officially.
  It remains the greatest threat to the United States, even after these 
6 long years: after two wars in two countries, after trillions of 
dollars spent on those wars and for homeland security, after the deaths 
of thousands of our military, and after the wounding of tens of 
thousands of our military.

[[Page S9084]]

  Yesterday, we heard from the No. 2 person, al-Zawahiri. He has 
released about a dozen tapes in the last year. Previously, we heard 
from Osama bin Laden. They are free, and they have escaped justice, and 
they are exhorting their followers to attack and kill, and al-Qaida is 
reconstituting.
  All this after six years.
  Let me describe a couple of things.
  On, January, 11, 2007, in testimony before the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence, the top intelligence person in our country 
said:

       Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our Homeland and 
     other targets with the objective of inflicting mass 
     casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections 
     and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' 
     secure hideaway in Pakistan.

  Our top intelligence person in this country said they have a secure 
hideout in Pakistan. John Negroponte said that. He was the Director of 
National Intelligence at the time. That was only a few months ago.
  Here is what he also said:

       Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that poses the 
     greatest threat to US interests, including to the Homeland.

  January 2007. That is not from the New York Times or the Washington 
Post, that is the testimony from John Negroponte, who at that point was 
the top intelligence official in our Government. Al Qaeda had a secure 
hideaway in Pakistan and remained the greatest threat to the U.S.
  Now, 2 days ago, I read in the paper that the head of our Homeland 
Security agency has a ``gut feeling'' about a new period of increased 
risk--a ``gut feeling.''
  Well, let me show you what we had in August of 2001: a Presidential 
daily briefing. This was released, by the way, about 3 years ago. This 
was the Presidential daily briefing, and I have it in my hand, dated 
August 6, 2001. The title is ``Bin Laden determined to strike in the 
U.S.''
  That was the Presidential daily briefing in August of 2001. ``Bin 
Laden determined to strike in the U.S.''
  July of 2007, almost six years later, top administration officials 
say that ``Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West.'' That's 
the secret intelligence assessment of the National Counter Terrorism 
Center.
  Think of that for a moment. Six years have passed. Six years have 
passed since the attacks of September 11, 2001. But, here we are 
debating a $640-plus billion authorization bill for armaments of every 
kind, and the greatest threat to our country today, according to the 
top intelligence Director in this Government, is al-Qaida and its 
network. And they operate from a secure hideaway in Pakistan. And, they 
are rebuilding their operational capability. Six years later.
  What has happened? What is happening? Well, we wake up in the morning 
and we read what is happening: Officials are worrying of a terror 
attack this summer. Michael Chertoff says he has a ``gut feeling'' 
about that. Other U.S. counterterrorism officials who spoke on 
condition of anonymity shared Chertoff's concern. This article says:

       Al-Qaida and like minded groups have been able to plot and 
     train more freely in the tribal areas along the Afghan-
     Pakistani border in recent months.

  I have been in that area. I have flown over the Afghanistan and 
Pakistani area border. I understand what it looks like. I understand 
you can't see where one country starts and another country begins. I 
understand how difficult all this must be. But I don't understand how 
this administration has decided, after 6 long years, that it doesn't 
matter so much that we haven't captured Osama bin Laden. The President 
himself said that. He doesn't worry much about Osama bin Laden. That's 
a direct quote. I can get it for you. That's exactly what he said: 
Don't worry much about him.
  Well, our country ought to worry about him. The leadership of al-
Qaida is the leadership of the organization that attacked this country 
and who, even now, we are told, are planning additional attacks against 
this country. So how is it in all this time that has elapsed that Osama 
is still on the loose and that al-Qaida is getting stronger and 
stronger.
  How is it that this is so even after the President said ``If you 
harbor terrorists, you are the same as terrorists to us; there will be 
no safe harbor.'' There was a safe harbor in Afghanistan for the 
terrorists. The Taliban gave them a safe harbor, so we went to war in 
Afghanistan. We drove out the Taliban and got rid of the safe harbor. 
That's what we did back in 2001 and 2002.
  But, apparently now, there is another safe harbor for Osama bin Laden 
and al-Qaida. After 6 long years, they have another safe harbor. It's 
in Pakistan or on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. They have 
terrorists training camps there. They are rebuilding. They are 
planning. Just like they did before.
  We must do something about this. We must not ignore this warning. We 
must act now.
  Senator Conrad and I have filed an amendment and we will offer it 
when we get the opportunity. It will do a couple of things. No. 1, it 
will insist we be given classified briefings on a quarterly basis on 
the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida.
  It will require that every quarter the Defense Department and the 
Director of National Intelligence provide Congress with a classified 
briefing telling us what is being done by the resources of this 
administration and the resources that are given in this Defense 
authorization bill to apprehend and bring to justice Osama bin Laden, 
al-Zawahiri, and others who led the attacks against this country and 
who even today plan additional attacks against our country.
  This is an urgent matter. This isn't just going after those who 
attacked us yesterday. It's about going after those seeking to attack 
us today and tomorrow.
  Just 2 weeks ago, the McClatchy Newspaper, on June 26, 2007, reported 
that ``Al-Qaida regroups in a new sanctuary on the Pakistani border,'' 
senior U.S. military intelligence and law enforcement officials say. It 
reported that ``While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents 
linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, 
regrouping, and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border between 
Afghanistan and Pakistan.''
  Six years after the attacks in this country, this is what we read.
  Now, we are in a war in the country of Iraq. I understand there are 
some in this Chamber who say this is the beachhead against al-Qaida. It 
is not. Does al-Qaida exist in Iraq? Yes, it does. But most of what is 
happening in Iraq is sectarian violence: Shia killing Sunni, Sunni 
killing Shia, Sunni and Shia killing American soldiers. Yes, al-Qaida 
exists in Iraq, but al-Qaida has largely come to Iraq as a result of 
what has been happening in Iraq. It was not and is not the central 
fight with respect to the war on terror.
  I spoke about this previously with respect to an amendment of this 
type. Incidentally, Senator Conrad and I have gotten this amendment 
passed by the Senate previously, but it gets dropped in conference. My 
hope is it will pass the Senate once again and this time--this time, at 
long last--it will not be dropped in conference.
  Finally, on a quarterly basis, at least, we will be able to get 
classified information about whether this administration is pursuing 
and bringing to justice those who attacked this country on 9/11, 2001, 
and those who, according to the papers this morning and yesterday 
morning and the morning before that, continue to plot those attacks 
against this country.
  How much longer will we be asked to read these stories, in most cases 
by unnamed administration officials?

       ``Senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan over 
     the past year have set up a band of training camps in the 
     tribal regions near the Afghan border,'' according to 
     American intelligence and counterterrorism officials. 
     ``American officials said there was mounting evidence that 
     Osama bin Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been 
     steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous 
     Pakistani tribal area north of Waziristan.''

  Those are the reports. They have been the same for a year or so now. 
Every couple of months we read this.
  I think it is important to ask the question--as we describe a piece 
of legislation that will offer $640-plus billion for the Department of 
Defense--I think it is important for us to ask the question as to 
whether at least a portion of this is dedicated to bringing to justice 
those who attacked this country.

  If the head of our intelligence service is correct when he says that 
``Al-Qaida

[[Page S9085]]

is the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to U.S. 
interests, including to the Homeland,'' then why is the central fight 
not a fight to apprehend and bring to justice the leadership of al-
Qaida?
  Why are they free today? Why are they in a secure area? Why are they 
harbored in a secure area where they are plotting attacks against our 
country and other countries? Why does that exist? It seems to me, at 
least in part, it must be a matter of will. The central fight, in my 
judgment, ought to be the fight to bring to justice those who attacked 
our country.
  Now, with respect to Iraq, this country is going to leave Iraq. That 
is not the question. The question is when and how.
  The American people are not going to continue year after year after 
year asking American soldiers to be in the middle of a civil war in 
Iraq. It simply will not be the case that the American people will 
allow that to happen. So we are going to leave Iraq; the question is 
how and when. We will debate that via several amendments over the 
coming days.
  But my point this morning is to say, while we debate Iraq and debate 
the circumstances of American troops largely in the middle of a civil 
war in Iraq, the question remains: Why? Why, after 6 years, does Osama 
bin Laden remain free? Why does he remain in a secure hideaway and 
remain apparently at the top, along with al-Zawahiri, in charge of al-
Qaida, plotting attacks against free people? Why is that still the 
case?
  Shouldn't we, finally, at last, at long last as a country, insist 
that our major objective be to bring to justice the leaders of al-Qaida 
and destroy the al-Qaida network? That is the real fight against 
terrorism.
  There is so much to say about so many subjects on the Defense 
authorization bill, but when we talk about defending our country's 
interests, we can go back some years and recall that we were in the 
middle of a Cold War, where we knew who the enemy was. The enemy was a 
nation state. In that case, the Cold War was the Soviet Union; the 
Soviet Union and the United States built large arsenals of nuclear 
weapons to stand each other off in something called mutually assured 
destruction.
  Times have changed. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Now, the 
major threat to our country is not a nation state. It is not an 
organization that has an ``army'' that wears uniforms. The greatest 
threat to our country now, according to testimony before the Select 
Committee on Intelligence of our country's most senior intelligence 
official, the Director of Intelligence, Mr. Negroponte, is clear:

       Al-Qaida is the terrorist organization that poses the 
     greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to the Homeland.

  If that is the case, then where is the strategy in the use of all the 
resources we provide in this legislation to the administration? Where 
is the strategy to bring to justice those who attacked this country? 
Regrettably and unfortunately, I think that strategy has not existed 
for far too long.
  As I indicated, I have filed the amendment I have written and the 
amendment that I and Senator Conrad, who joins me in this amendment, 
will attempt to have considered by the Senate. I assume it will be 
considered following the consideration of several others of the Iraq 
amendments that have already been noticed. The amendment we have filed 
requires classified reports on a quarterly basis. It also will double 
the reward that has been offered from $25 million to $50 million for 
apprehending or information leading to the apprehension of Osama bin 
Laden.
  We gave the current administration substantial authority to boost the 
reward 2 years ago. It did not do that. We believe that, because 
nothing seems to happen with this administration on this issue, it is 
important for the Congress to push and to insist.
  In this amendment, we ask for four key things. We ask that the 
classified briefings be given to Congress telling us the likely current 
location of the al-Qaida leadership. All of the information suggests 
that senior leaders in this administration know generally where that 
location is.
  We ask for a description of the ongoing efforts to bring the 
leadership of al-Qaida to justice and a report on the Governments of 
the countries in which al-Qaida is allowed to exist and allowed to 
rebuild. We ask for reports on whether they are fully cooperating with 
us and what they are doing to help us apprehend those who attacked our 
country.
  So that represents my interest in trying to address this issue. Once 
again, I have spoken to Senator Levin previously on this issue. In 
fact, we have previously passed a similar amendment through the Senate, 
and I appreciate his cooperation in doing so. I would ask of Senator 
Levin if he would give us some consideration. We filed the amendment, 
and we will ask to follow it up and have it considered at some 
appropriate point.
  He, of course, manages this bill and has the juggling requirement to 
meet all the needs for time that people have. I see my colleague, 
Senator Conrad, is coming to the floor, and I think I have a few 
minutes remaining. As he joins us to speak of his interest in this 
amendment, let me ask Senator Levin, if I might, while we are waiting 
for Senator Conrad, would we have an opportunity either this week or 
next week to be able to consider our amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, that would be our plan and our hope. 
Perhaps the Senator from North Dakota could remind me, did we clear 
this amendment or was there a rollcall vote on this?
  Mr. DORGAN. The amendment was cleared, I believe. We actually offered 
it twice, but I believe it was cleared.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would hope we could clear it again, and if not, there 
will be a spot for the Senator to offer the amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. We would like, if necessary, a rollcall vote on the 
amendment and I thank you for your consideration. As I said, Senator 
Conrad will take the remaining time, so at this point I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining of the unanimous 
consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 45 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time does Senator Conrad, if I could address him, 
need? We were delaying introducing the wounded warriors legislation in 
order to give the Senator an opportunity to speak on the amendment 
which he plans on offering. Is that the same amendment which----
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator could let us know about how long 
it would be?
  Mr. CONRAD. Ten minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Senator McCain is not here, but I doubt that he would have 
any objection, so therefore I take the liberty of asking unanimous 
consent that Senator Conrad be recognized for 10 minutes and then I be 
recognized to introduce the wounded warrior legislation. Senator Akaka 
is also here, and I am wondering if he has any objection.
  Mr. AKAKA. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the September 11, 2001 attack by al-Qaida, 
led by Osama bin Laden, is seared on the soul of the Nation. I know it 
is a day I will never forget. President Bush vowed then to bring Osama 
bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist allies to justice.
  Days after 9/11, President Bush said:

       This act will not stand; we will find those who did it; we 
     will smoke them out of their holes . . . we will bring 
     them to justice.

  Every American shared those feelings. Similar to Pearl Harbor, the 
date of 9/11 became a seminal moment for our Nation, a day we cannot 
and must not forget. But it has now been nearly 6 years--2,130 days--
since the attacks of 9/11--that's more time than America took fighting 
fascism in World War II.
  Osama bin Laden is still at large. In fact, he and al-Qaida are 
gaining strength, by all accounts. Two weeks ago in Great Britain, we 
saw a failed attempt to target airports with car bombs. Two years ago, 
London subway bombings killed 52 and injured 700--bombings which may be 
linked to al-Qaida.
  Today's newspapers report U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded 
that

[[Page S9086]]

al-Qaida has rebuilt to its pre-9/11 strengths. These analysts say al-
Qaida is ``considerably operationally stronger than a year ago'' and 
has ``regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001.'' The reports suggest 
al-Qaida has created ``the most robust training program since 2001, 
with an interest in using European operatives'' and is ``showing 
greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United 
States.''
  Private experts agree al-Qaida is now stronger than before. According 
to the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, the 
number of al-Qaida operatives worldwide has grown from 20,000 6 years 
ago to 50,000 today.
  What is going on here? What does it say to jihadists around the world 
that a terrorist mastermind such as bin Laden can kill 3,000 Americans 
and remain alive and untouched 6 years later? What does it say that he 
and his allies are gaining strength?
  There can be only one conclusion: The President got our priorities 
wrong. Before finishing with al-Qaida and capturing bin Laden, 
President Bush lost focus.
  We know who attacked us on 9/11. It was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, 
not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Yet the painful truth is the 
administration got our priorities wrong. The President pulled troops 
and intelligence specialists out of Afghanistan and the search for 
Osama bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaida and instead attacked Iraq.
  USA Today reported:

       In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who 
     specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for 
     Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next 
     assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with 
     expertise in Spanish culture.

  Are people hearing this? We pulled experts in the Arab language and 
Middle East culture out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, an Arabic 
speaker who led the attack on us, and we put those troops over into the 
hunt for Saddam Hussein in Iraq and replaced them with experts in 
Spanish culture. There are not many Spanish speakers in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan.

       The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to 
     collect, translate, and analyze information coming from 
     Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it 
     took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure 
     Iraq was covered.

  I believe this will go down in history as a profound mistake. We lost 
focus. The President took us on a path that proved to be a distraction. 
Instead of following up on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, we got 
diverted and directed our energy and attention to Saddam Hussein and 
Iraq. I believe the priorities were wrong.
  The former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit called the invasion of 
Iraq ``a godsend to Osama bin Laden.'' So I have to ask why--why did we 
allow our post-9/11 focus on bin Laden to be distracted? Why didn't we 
have enough forces on the ground at Tora Bora to get the job done and 
capture bin Laden and his al-Qaida allies? The answer, I believe, 
unfortunately is clear: The administration made a strategic error and 
shifted its focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. I believe, as I have said 
before, that that was a profound mistake.
  I spent the last 2 years of my high school years living in the Arab 
culture. I attended an American Air Force base high school in Tripoli, 
Libya. In that culture, it is critically important not to allow someone 
to go uncaptured and unaccounted for who launched an attack. If you 
don't finish business with those who attack you, they only grow in the 
public mind. That is absolutely the wrong message to send.
  Last September, the administration once again showed it is not 
focused on al-Qaida. President Bush's national strategy for combating 
terrorism includes only one passing reference to Osama bin Laden. Last 
September, the White House issued an updated strategy for 
counterterrorism. In a 23-page document, bin Laden's name appears only 
once.
  This man ordered the killing of 3,000 innocent Americans, but in the 
administration's report on fighting terrorist threats, he is only an 
afterthought.
  It has now been 2,130 days since President Bush said ``We will find 
those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes . . . we will 
bring them to justice.'' Those were absolutely the right sentiments and 
the right plan. Unfortunately, the President's strategy has failed. He 
has not found Osama bin Laden. He has not smoked him out of his hole, 
and he has not been brought to justice. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida 
operatives continue to threaten this Nation.
  I believe that is unacceptable. We must capture or kill Osama bin 
Laden. We must bring his entire network of terrorists to justice. I 
believe deeply that stopping al-Qaida should be our top priority.
  Our amendment makes that clear. It is very simple. It says that 
capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and dismantling al-Qaida should be 
our top priority.
  Our amendment has two parts. First, it doubles the bounty on Osama 
bin Laden. Whether we capture or kill him, it is past time that he be 
brought to justice. I urge my colleagues to join us in sending that 
message.
  Second, our amendment requires a clear report to Congress, laying out 
the administration's strategy for bringing bin Laden and al-Qaida 
operatives to justice.
  I urge my colleagues to make it this Nation's top military priority 
to bring Osama bin Laden to the justice that he deserves as the world's 
most notorious terrorist.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2019 to Amendment No. 2011

 (Purpose: To provide for the care and management of wounded warriors)

  Mr. Levin. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2019, the dignified 
treatment of wounded warriors amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. LEVIN], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
     Byrd, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Cornyn, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Thune, Mr. Reed, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
     Brown, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Tester, Mr. Nelson of 
     Nebraska, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Webb, Mrs. 
     McCaskill, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bond, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Salazar, 
     Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Lott, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. 
     Hutchison, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2019 to 2011.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, July 9, 2007, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am offering this with Senators McCain, 
Akaka, Warner, Murray, Graham, and about 40 other Senators who are 
listed on the amendment.
  This amendment, in bill form, was introduced on June 13 of this year. 
It was marked up and unanimously agreed to by the Armed Services 
Committee on the 14th of June. It was reported to the full Senate on 
the 18th of June. As of now, as I indicated, we have over 40 
cosponsors. The ideas of many Senators and parts of legislation 
championed by many Senators are incorporated in this amendment.
  This is truly a bipartisan amendment. It is an amendment that has had 
a huge amount of input by many Senators. Although I would prefer the 
Senate consider this important legislation as a stand-alone provision, 
a stand-alone bill, because of the shortage of floor time, we now offer 
it as an amendment to the national defense authorization bill. If it is 
adopted as an amendment, and assuming that our Defense authorization 
bill is passed, we would then seek to have it introduced and passed 
immediately thereafter as stand-alone legislation, so we would have it 
in two forms--one as an amendment to the bill and the other as a stand-
alone bill passed by the Senate, so it could go immediately to the 
House, without waiting for a conference on the authorization bill 
between the Senate and the House, which would delay the passage of this 
very important legislation.
  Shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors came to 
our

[[Page S9087]]

attention as a result of a series of articles in the Washington Post in 
February. These articles described deplorable living conditions for 
some servicemembers in an outpatient status. They described a bungled 
bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that determine 
whether a servicemember will be medically retired with health and other 
benefits for himself and his family. They describe a clumsy handoff 
between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs as the military member transitions from one department to 
another. The Nation's shock and dismay, when hearing about these 
problems, reflected the American people's support, the American 
people's respect, and the American people's gratitude to the men and 
women who put on our Nation's uniform. Those men and women deserve the 
best--not shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafus.
  The Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
held a rare joint hearing to identify the problems our wounded soldiers 
are facing. These committees have continued to work together to address 
these issues, culminating in the amendment we offer today. The 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs has also marked up separate legislation 
that will be offered as an amendment to our amendment. Their 
legislation will ensure that the Veterans' Administration appropriately 
addresses the problems our seriously wounded and injured servicemembers 
face after they transition to VA care.
  The amendment we are introducing addresses the issues of inconsistent 
application of disability standards. It addresses disparate disability 
ratings, substandard facilities, lack of seamless transition from the 
Department of Defense to the Veterans' Administration, inadequacy of 
severance pay, care and treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-
traumatic stress disorder, medical care for caregivers not eligible for 
TRICARE, and it addresses the need to share medical records between the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Our amendment addresses the issue of inconsistent disability ratings 
by requiring that the military departments use VA standards for rating 
disabilities, unless the Department of Defense rating is higher. So it 
would take the higher of the two ratings under our legislation. Our 
amendment adopts a more favorable statutory presumption for determining 
whether a disability is incident to military service. We do that by 
adopting the more favorable VA presumption.

  We require two pilot programs to test the viability of using the VA 
to assign disability ratings for the Department of Defense. We also 
establish an independent board to review and, where appropriate, 
correct unjustifiably low Department of Defense disability ratings 
awarded since 2001.
  Our amendment addresses the lack of a seamless transition from the 
military to the Veterans' Administration by requiring the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a 
comprehensive policy on the care and management of injured 
servicemembers who will transition from the Department of Defense to 
the VA.
  We establish a Department of Defense and a Department of Veterans 
Affairs interagency program office to develop and implement a joint 
electronic health record.
  The amendment authorizes $50 million for improved diagnosis, 
treatment, and rehabilitation of military members with traumatic brain 
injury, TBI, and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. We require the 
establishment of centers of excellence for both TBI and PTSD to conduct 
research, train health care professionals, and a number of other 
things.
  We provide guidance throughout the Department of Defense in the 
prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of TBI 
and PTSD. And the amendment requires that the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, report to Congress 
with comprehensive plans to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, and treat TBI 
and PTSD.
  The amendment increases the minimum severance pay to 1 year's basic 
pay for those separated with disabilities incurred in a combat zone or 
combat-related activity and 6 months basic pay for all others. This is 
quadrupling or doubling, depending on the circumstance, of the current 
arrangement.
  Our amendment also eliminates the requirement that severance pay be 
deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a 
combat zone.
  Our amendment also addresses the problem that exists because 
medically retired servicemembers who are eligible for TRICARE as 
retirees do not have access to some of the cutting-edge treatments that 
are available to members still on active duty.
  The amendment does that by authorizing medically retired 
servicemembers to receive the Active-Duty medical benefit for 3 years 
after the member leaves active duty, and this can be extended to 5 
years where medically required.
  The amendment authorizes military and VA health care providers to 
provide medical care and counseling to family members who leave their 
homes and often leave their jobs to help provide care to their wounded 
warriors.
  The dignified treatment of wounded warriors amendment requires the 
Secretary of Defense to establish standards for the treatment of and 
housing for military outpatients. These standards will require 
compliance with Federal and other standards for military medical 
treatment facilities, speciality medical care facilities, and military 
housing for outpatients that will be uniform and consistent and high 
level throughout the Department of Defense.
  In summary, the dignified treatment of wounded warriors amendment is 
a comprehensive approach that lays out a path for the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to address shortfalls in 
the care of our wounded warriors in the Department of Defense and 
through the transition to care in the VA system. With the amendment we 
will be discussing in a moment, that has been adopted by the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee under the chairmanship and leadership of Senator 
Akaka, this bill will also address shortfalls in the VA system itself 
after the transition to the Veterans' Administration of our wounded 
warriors. Those warriors deserve the best care and support that we can 
muster. The American people rightly insist on no less.
  There are a number of organizations which support this legislation. I 
will read from a release that was issued by one of those organizations. 
This is the Wounded Warrior Project:

       [This] is a nonprofit organization aimed at assisting those 
     men and women of the United States armed forces who have been 
     severely injured during the war on terrorism in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, and other hot spots around the world.

  A description of this project is:

       Beginning at the bedside of the severely wounded, Wounded 
     Warrior Project provides programs and services designated to 
     ease the burdens of these heroes and their families, aid in 
     the recovery process and smooth the transition back to 
     civilian life.

  Just one paragraph from their release is the following:

       With this legislation, the Senate is telling our nation's 
     wounded warriors that they have heard their concerns and are 
     ready to take appropriate actions to ensure that these brave 
     men and women are taken care of in a manner befitting their 
     sacrifices. . . . This wide ranging legislation will improve 
     the provision of health care and benefits to injured military 
     personnel and make the system much more efficient as well.

  I ask unanimous consent that the statement of the Wounded Warrior 
Project and the statement of the Fleet Reserve Association be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have a number of amendments which have 
been cleared, 10 amendments which have been cleared which we will 
describe in a few moments after Senator McCain speaks and after Senator 
Akaka speaks. We will describe those second-degree amendments that have 
been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  Again, I especially thank my ranking member, Senator McCain, and all 
the members of our committee for the extraordinary work they have put 
in on this legislation. It is, as I mentioned, comprehensive and 
desperately needed.
  I also thank Senator Akaka, who is chairman of our Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, for his leadership because that committee has worked very 
closely

[[Page S9088]]

with our committee on this joint project. This is truly not just a 
joint effort between two committees but just about every Member of this 
body has had a role and a voice in this legislation. It is one of the 
best examples, I believe, of not only bipartisan action that I have 
seen in the Senate, but also a very speedy action and, we believe, very 
thorough consideration as well.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) Applauds Senate Armed Services Committee 
     for New Legislation to Assist Severely Wounded Servicemembers

       Jacksonville, FL, June 14, 2007.--Today, the Wounded 
     Warrior Project (WWP) applauded the Senate Armed Services 
     Committee for the introduction of the ``Dignified Treatment 
     of Wounded Warriors Act'', a comprehensive piece of 
     legislation that will greatly assist severely wounded 
     servicemembers. WWP was particularly pleased to note that the 
     bill included several of the legislative proposals that the 
     organization has proposed and supported.
       ``With this legislation, the Senate is telling our nation's 
     wounded warriors that they have heard their concerns and are 
     ready to take appropriate actions to ensure that these brave 
     men and women are taken care of in a manner befitting their 
     sacrifices'', said WWP Executive Director, John Melia. ``This 
     wide ranging legislation will improve the provision of health 
     care and benefits to injured military personnel and make the 
     system much more efficient as well''.
       The ``Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act'' is 
     sponsored by Senators Levin (D-MI), McCain (R-AZ), Akaka (D-
     HI), Warner (R-VA), Clinton (D-NY) and others. Among the 
     provisions included in the legislation, the bill would 
     require the Department of Defense (DOD) to adopt a Pre-
     Deployment Cognitive Assessment tool to help identify 
     Traumatic Brain Injury or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in 
     returning servicemembers. Additionally, it would require DOD 
     to work with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on 
     developing a caregiver training program for family members of 
     brain injured servicemembers, and reform the disability 
     evaluation and ratings system that military personnel must 
     navigate prior to retirement from service. The bill would 
     also create an overlap of DOD and VA benefits to allow 
     wounded warriors to benefit from the strengths of both 
     systems without having to choose access to one over the 
     other.
       In addition to these provisions, at this morning's Senate 
     Armed Services Committee hearing, eight amendments suggested 
     by WWP were adopted into the bill.
       ``These provisions have grown out of our direct interaction 
     with our wounded warriors'', Melia said. ``We strongly 
     encourage the Senate to pass this bill and to work with the 
     House of Representatives to ensure these vital initiatives 
     are included in the final version of the bill that will 
     hopefully reach the President's desk. We stand committed to 
     assisting in any way.''


                     about wounded warrior project

       Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) is a non-profit organization 
     aimed at assisting those men and women of the United States 
     armed forces who have been severely injured during the war on 
     terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots around the 
     world. Beginning at the bedside of the severely wounded, WWP 
     provides programs and services designated to ease the burdens 
     of these heroes and their families, aid in the recovery 
     process and smooth the transition back to civilian life. For 
     more information, please call (904) 296-7350 or visit 
     www.woundedwarriorproject.org.
 ____



                                    Fleet Reserve Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 11, 2007.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Levin: The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) 
     strongly supports your pending amendment to the FY 2008 
     Defense Authorization bill that include the provisions of 
     ``The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act'' (S. 
     1606), to improve the management of medical care, the 
     disability rating system, and quality of life issues for 
     wounded members of the Armed Forces. This amendment is 
     important and will address significant long standing problems 
     associated with the coordination of care between the 
     Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
       FRA appreciates your leadership on this issue and shares 
     your concern about adequate care for wounded service members. 
     The Association stands ready to assist you in its passage in 
     the 110th Congress. The FRA point of contact is John Davis, 
     FRA' s Director of Legislative Programs at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                                 Joseph L. Barnes,
                                     National Executive Secretary.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I begin by echoing the remarks of the 
chairman of the committee that we appreciate the partnership with the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a partnership led by Senator Akaka and 
Senator Craig. We have worked closely together in trying to come up 
with one of the most aptly titled pieces of legislation that I have 
ever been involved in, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act.
  It is important to point out that we are making this part of the 
Defense authorization bill, which we believe has a very good chance of 
being signed by the President, as the quickest way to get this 
legislation enacted. There was a great deal of discussion back and 
forth as to whether it should stand by itself or should be part of the 
Defense Authorization Act.
  I know I speak for all of us, and that is if something happens to 
this legislation, we would come back with a separate piece of 
legislation so that we can make sure we act as quickly as possible.
  We were all deeply disappointed by the conditions at Walter Reed that 
were reported in February of this year and the problems that our 
wounded warriors faced after their inpatient care was complete--living 
in substandard conditions at building 18, being treated poorly, 
battling a Cold-War disability evaluation process and, for some, 
falling through the cracks.
  Since February of 2007, there have been many encouraging changes. 
First and foremost, Secretary Gates insisted on accountability for the 
leadership failures that led to the tragedy at Walter Reed.
  In April of this year, the Army stood up a new warrior transition 
brigade at Walter Reed to attend to the needs of wounded and ill 
soldiers in both Active and Reserve components. This model of soldiers 
caring for soldiers is now spreading throughout the Army.
  I think we are on the right track to address the problems at Walter 
Reed, but there is much more to be done. And I emphasize, we all 
recognize there is much more to be done. But I do believe this 
legislation is a very important and valuable contribution to the effort 
that must be ongoing. We must match the heroism of the wonderful young 
men and women who have given so much for our country.
  Let me tell you who some of my heroes are: SGT Ted Wade was 
grievously wounded in Iraq in 2004, who together with his young wife 
Sara has bravely battled for 4 years the maze of health care and 
benefit evaluations of the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and 
Social Security; lost medical records, confusing and conflicting 
medical and physical evaluations, and Sara even lost her job. These 
brave young people have also lost time. Four years is too much to ask 
of someone who has given so much for his country.
  SFC Jeff Mittman is a brave Army soldier who was wounded 2 years ago 
by an RPG that tore away a significant portion of his face. Today, Jeff 
is still on active duty, though he returns to Walter Reed frequently 
for special surgery. Together with his wife Christy, they have 
continued to raise their children. Jeff is back at school. As a 
testament to his heroism, Jeff says of his extraordinary injuries: ``I 
got hit hard, but I'll walk it off.'' This weekend, he and his family 
will celebrate the second anniversary of his being alive.
  SGT Eric Edmondson, a soldier who suffered severe traumatic brain 
injury in October 2005 and was thought to be without hope of recovery, 
today is standing on his own, thanks to the work of his remarkable 
therapist and his own strong determination to survive.
  Petty Officer Mark Robbins is a Navy Seal who lost his eye from a 
sniper's bullet after saving the lives of his buddies in an RPG attack 
in Iraq in April of this year. Mark, who walked to the medical 
evacuation helicopter on his own after being wounded, is recovering 
today at his home in San Diego. His determination to carry on in the 
fight in spite of his injury is not the exception among our young men 
and women, it is a tribute.
  I also think it is appropriate from time to time, even though what 
happened at Walter Reed was a disgrace and a scandal and a source of 
national shame, and it is important that we continue to emphasize that 
there are thousands and thousands of people who work in our armed 
services hospitals and clinics and also in veterans affairs who are 
present at our hospitals, who take care of our aging veterans from the 
``greatest generation,'' Korea, and the Vietnam war. These people labor 
most of the time without credit, most

[[Page S9089]]

of the time without publicity, and do a magnificent job.
  The system is broken, not the people--not the people--who serve with 
dedication and patience and care, and love our veterans in a way which 
should be an example to all of us, and we should never forget that as 
we try to fix a broken system.
  As I mentioned, these are some of America's heroes, my heroes, who 
have sustained terrible wounds, whose lives have been saved by the 
finest medical professionals in the world, and who, with their 
families, face the challenge of a long recovery and rebuilding their 
lives.
  This legislation, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, 
will make a difference in the lives of our wounded warriors and their 
families. It bridges the gap in health care coverage for the severely 
wounded and ensures their access to the broadest possible range of 
health care options.
  It authorizes additional care and support for families who are caring 
for the wounded. It requires the Secretary of Defense and Veterans 
Affairs to develop and implement new policies to better manage the care 
and transition of our wounded soldiers. It empowers a special board to 
review disability ratings of 20 percent or less and to restore to a 
wounded soldier, if appropriate, a higher disability rating or retired 
status.
  Mr. President, that issue alone, of disability ratings, is one that, 
frankly, the Senator from Michigan and I cannot understand why it 
continued; that from one medical evaluation board, a certain level of 
disability and compensation would be adjudged while on active duty, go 
directly to the VA, and then another assessment is made with a 
different level of disability. It is just nonsensical. And I would like 
to say to all my colleagues, and I know we share a responsibility as 
well, we blamed the military, we blamed the VA, and we blamed a lot of 
people, but part of the responsibility lies right here with those of us 
who are supposed to have been paying better attention than we did. So I 
wish to make that perfectly clear, that I personally--and the 
Congress--share in the responsibility for having not fixed this system 
and some of the problems that have existed for a long time.
  This legislation empowers a special board, as I mentioned, to review 
disability ratings. It authorizes additional funding for traumatic 
brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, encouraging public and 
private partnerships to address these signature injuries of the war, 
and supports efforts to erase the stigma associated with seeking care.
  We found out, much to our sorrow, that in this kind of conflict, 
brain injuries are probably far more prevalent than almost any other 
conflict in which our Nation has engaged. We also have found out, thank 
God, that we are able to save a higher percentage of those wounded than 
we have in any other conflict--again, a testimony to the incredible 
professionalism of those who labor and work with dedication in our 
military medical health care system.
  The legislation improves benefits related to the administrative 
separation from the military due to injury, increasing severance pay 
for servicemembers with disabilities incurred in a combat zone, and 
eliminating the requirement that severance pay be deducted from VA 
disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone--
another remarkable situation which should have been fixed long ago. It 
requires the Secretary of Defense to immediately implement pilot 
projects to test improvements to the disability evaluation systems, to 
fundamentally change and improve those antiquated systems. It requires 
the Secretary of Defense to inspect and improve medical treatment in 
residential facilities and to study the accelerated construction of new 
facilities at the National Medical Center at Bethesda. The current 
facilities of Walter Reed have served the Nation well, but we can, and 
must, do better.
  This legislation is an important step toward restoring trust for 
America's wounded and our veterans, but it is not our final 
destination. Our work also must be informed by the Presidential 
Commission on Care for America's Wounded, cochaired by one of my 
personal heroes, Senator Dole, an enduring American hero. This report 
will be filed in another few weeks, and I am confident we will work to 
implement the recommendations of that report as quickly as possible.
  I am pleased that the Senate Committees on Armed Services and 
Veterans' Affairs held a joint hearing on the care of the wounded 
earlier this year. On June 27, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
reported a bill, portions of which will be offered as an amendment to 
the underlying bill. These add new resources for traumatic brain injury 
and mental health evaluations provided by the VA and extend the 
eligibility for care for combat veterans from 2 to 5 years.
  I believe additional conversation and legislation are needed to 
ensure that veterans with service-connected illnesses and disabilities 
have timely access to quality health care service through the Veterans' 
Administration. Given the strain on the veterans health system and the 
limits of our resources, I believe this can best be achieved through 
partnerships with civilian health care specialists, based on the health 
care needs of our wounded veterans. I don't think there is anybody in 
the world who is better qualified and better trained to address direct 
combat injuries. I do believe there are many areas of health care in 
America that are better at certain types of illnesses, certain types of 
mental therapy that is required, and other areas where health care 
specialists exist. Those health care specialists should be made 
available to our veterans. I am a fiscal conservative, as everybody 
knows, but in this area, the care and treatment of wounded warriors and 
veterans, we cannot retreat, no matter what the cost.
  I wish to again thank the distinguished chairman of this committee 
for his leadership. I again thank Senator Akaka, Senator Craig, and 
every member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee as well as the Armed 
Services Committee for our coming together and coming forward with this 
legislation. I only regret that it was needed.
  I repeat the words of President George Washington in 1789, as I have 
so often during these times:

       The willingness with which our young people are likely to 
     serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly 
     proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier 
     wars were treated and appreciated by their country.

  Again, I thank all the members of the committee, and I thank Ted and 
Sara Wade, Jeff and Christy Mittman, Eric Edmondson, Mark Robbins and 
his parents, and all of our wounded and their families. The solution to 
your trials requires cooperation among us all--in Congress, within the 
executive branch, and among veterans in military service organizations. 
With this amendment, I believe we are on the right path.
  Again, I want to add my appreciation for the veterans service 
organizations--the VFW, the DAV, the AMVETS, the American Legion, and 
so many veterans organizations that labored day after day, in obscurity 
but with courage and with dedication on behalf of our veterans. Without 
them, we would not have received the valuable guidance and information 
and knowledge they have provided us as they address these challenges 
every single day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Hawaii would 
yield for a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. AKAKA. Certainly.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
remarks of the Senator from Hawaii, the Senator from Washington and the 
Senator from New York be recognized on this side to speak, and if there 
are Senators on the Republican side who wish to speak, that they be 
interspersed with those three Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 2019

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member 
for their leadership in bringing about changes that will make a huge 
difference in the military and in our country as well. Later today, I 
intend to offer, along with my good friend and

[[Page S9090]]

ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Craig, an 
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 that would complement the outstanding work already done by the 
Armed Services Committee with the dignified treatment of wounded 
warriors amendment.
  Our amendment seeks to enhance the care servicemembers receive once 
they transition to veteran status. It would improve the capability of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for veterans with traumatic 
brain injuries. It would also improve access to VA mental health and 
dental care, address the issue of homelessness among newly discharged 
servicemembers, and recognize the importance of the National Guard and 
Reserve in the VA's outreach programs.
  This amendment is a direct outcome of the close collaboration between 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee 
following our April 12 joint hearing. I was delighted to work with 
Chairman Levin of the Armed Services Committee, Ranking Member Craig of 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and others on this important 
amendment. I also thank Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Obama, Brown, and 
Mikulski for their cosponsorship of the amendment.
  Our amendment includes provisions recently approved by the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs at our markup on June 27 and represents the VA 
Committee's work to address the seamless-transition issues in 
collaboration with the Armed Services Committee's work on S. 1606, the 
Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. Our actions here today, 
Mr. President, represent true collaboration between the two 
committees--a model for how the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
Defense should be working together.
  At the heart of our amendment are improvements to TBI care. Ranking 
Member Craig and I worked on these TBI provisions, and they have 
garnered the support of many organizations, including the American 
Academy of Neurology, the Brain Injury Association of America, the 
Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, and the 
Disabled American Veterans.
  The VA was caught flatfooted by the large number of devastating TBIs 
resulting from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our amendment 
would require individual rehabilitation plans for veterans with TBI and 
authorize the use of non-VA facilities for the best TBI care available. 
It would require the VA to implement and research an education program 
for severe TBI through coordination with other Federal entities 
conducting similar research. There is also a pilot program for 
assisted-living services for veterans with TBI. This is comprehensive 
TBI legislation.
  The amendment also addresses the amount of time a newly discharged 
servicemember has to take advantage of the unfettered access to VA care 
for which they are eligible. Under current law, any Active-Duty 
servicemember who is discharged or separated from active duty following 
deployment to a theater of combat operations, including members of the 
Guard and Reserve, is eligible for VA health care for a 2-year period 
without reference to any other criteria. Our amendment would extend 
this period to 5 years.
  There are two primary reasons for allowing a greater period of 
eligibility: protection from budget cuts and ensuring access to care 
for health concerns--such as mental health or readjustment problems--
that may not be readily apparent when a servicemember leaves active 
duty. In recent years, funding for VA health care has too often been 
delayed by the legislative and appropriations process, leading to 
delayed or denied care for veterans with lower priorities for VA care. 
Veterans who have served in a combat theater deserve to have their 
health care guaranteed for at least the 5 years immediately following 
their discharge.
  With regard specifically to mental health and readjustment issues, 2 
years is often insufficient time for symptoms related to PTSD and other 
mental illnesses to manifest themselves. In many cases, it takes years 
for these invisible wounds to present themselves, and many 
servicemembers do not immediately seek care. Experts predict that up to 
30 percent of OIF and OEF servicemembers will need some type of 
readjustment service. Five years would provide a more appropriate 
window in which to address these risks. With over 1.4 million Americans 
having served in OIF and OEF and with over 600,000 of those members 
already eligible for VA health care because they have left active duty 
or, in the case of Reserve Forces, have been demobilized, extending 
this eligibility will help smooth their transition to civilian life.
  To further address the mental health needs of separating 
servicemembers, we have included a provision in our amendment that 
would require the VA to provide a preliminary mental health examination 
within 30 days of a veteran's request for it.
  I thank Senator Obama for his work on this provision.
  We have learned from past wars that the longer mental health needs go 
unmet, the more difficult and extended the recovery.
  Additionally, as servicemembers separate from active duty and become 
veterans, the threat of homelessness always exists as they reintegrate 
into society.
  We have all heard the sad and shocking statistic that one out of 
every three homeless persons on the street at any given time is a 
veteran.
  To further assist transitioning service members, our amendment 
requires the VA to conduct a demonstration project to identify those 
who are at risk of becoming homeless upon discharge or release from 
active duty. The demonstration project would provide referral, 
counseling, and support services for these individuals.
  It has been proven through previous VA efforts that this process can 
reduce the incidence of homelessness and other problems among veterans.
  This amendment also addresses the issue of the VA's outreach to 
members of the Guard and Reserves.
  In the ongoing global operations, the reserve components have been 
used on an unprecedented scale. When these citizen soldiers redeploy 
and demobilize it is essential that the VA include them in outreach 
efforts.
  To recognize the importance of the Guard and Reserve, and to 
acknowledge their contribution to the Nation's efforts, this amendment 
would redefine the VA's definition of outreach to include specific 
reference to the Guard and Reserve.
  Finally, the amendment also addresses VA dental care for separating 
servicemembers by extending the window to apply for VA dental benefits 
following discharge from active duty. This amendment extends from 90 
days to 180 days the application period for such benefits.
  Recently returned servicemembers face significant readjustment, and 
dental concerns may not be a top priority. In addition, members of the 
National Guard and Reserve are often given 90 days of leave following 
discharge from active duty, and, upon return to their units, the 
opportunity to apply for dental benefits has passed.
  The extension to 180 days would improve access to care and facilitate 
smoother transition from military to civilian life.
  Our amendment touches on many of the issues that are affecting 
transitioning servicemembers and newest veterans. It truly complements 
the outstanding work that was done by the Armed Services Committee to 
take care of wounded warriors. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this amendment when it comes before the Senate. Thank you, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I know Senator Murray is going to be recognized now under 
our existing unanimous consent agreement. I ask, after she is 
recognized and after Senator Schumer, who is also in the sequence, is 
recognized, that Senator Carper of Delaware be recognized following 
Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Isakson be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, it is an honor to me to be here today 
to speak about the amendment that is currently before the Senate, the 
Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors

[[Page S9091]]

Act. This is a critically important amendment for the Senate and a 
critically important action for Congress and for the United States of 
America in finally making sure that we take care of those who have 
served this country so honorably, the men and women who are serving us 
overseas.
  Madam President, 4\1/2\ years ago, the President asked Congress to go 
to war in Iraq. I stood on this floor as one of a handful of Senators, 
23 of us who, at that time, said no. I said no because I didn't believe 
we had a clear mission. I didn't believe we should take our eye off the 
ball of the war on terror and the al-Qaida threat that was confronting 
our Nation, and I believed we did not have in place a long-term plan 
for military action in Iraq. I have never regretted that vote.
  But when I spoke on the floor opposing the action of the President, I 
said once our troops were sent to war, no matter how we voted on it, it 
was our responsibility to make sure we took care of them when they came 
home. This country has failed to do that.
  I had to sit out here on the Senate floor and fight, literally, vote 
after vote to get this Senate to pay attention to the fact that we had 
men and women coming home, waiting in long lines to get their VA 
benefits, who were not able to get an appointment to see a doctor, who 
were unemployed, who were being sent back to the front time and time 
again, whose families were falling through the cracks because of the 
long deployments, and that we had military facilities that were 
incapable of dealing with the thousands of men and women who were 
coming home and who were injured.
  Today, finally, we are coming to a point where, through the hard work 
of our VA Committee, Armed Services, and others, we have brought to the 
Senate a bipartisan amendment that I hope passes overwhelmingly this 
afternoon, that begins to address the critical needs which our soldiers 
are facing.
  Since this war began 4\1/2\ years ago, I have taken the time to stop 
and talk to our men and women when they have come home. I have seen the 
tears in their eyes as they wait on medical hold not for days, not for 
months, but for more than a year, fighting the very service they swore 
to serve, to get their benefits. They were given ratings that were far 
too low in order to keep them in the military rather than allowing them 
to get out and get on with their lives. I have talked to men and women 
on medical hold, who were trying to get through a complex system of 
ratings for help, whose advocates themselves, advocates to help them 
get through the system, were soldiers who had post-traumatic stress 
syndrome and had difficulty themselves dealing with their own lives, 
let alone advocating for a servicemember who is trying to get through a 
complex system.
  I have talked personally to men and women who, after not once, not 
twice, but maybe dozens, if not more than 100 times, being close to 
explosives, came home and couldn't understand why they couldn't 
remember their children's names or where they put their car keys or 
even where they lived because they had traumatic brain injury, but no 
one had diagnosed it correctly.
  I have talked to too many parents and spouses and family members who 
have told me horrific stories of their very proud servicemember who has 
come home, left the service, and been left at home medically dealing 
themselves drugs because they have post-traumatic stress syndrome and 
no one had taken the time to find them or their family to educate them 
about the services they need.
  When we agree to this legislation, this amendment today, we will 
finally have taken a very direct step in helping the men and women who 
have served this country so honorably.
  Madam President, 4\1/2\ years ago, when the President asked us to go 
to war in Iraq, he talked about weapons of mass destruction, he talked 
about al-Qaida, he talked about the mission to fight the war on 
terror--but what he has never talked about, in my opinion, is taking 
care of those men and women who have served us honorably. Today, the 
Senate is going to talk about those men and women who have served us 
and what we need to do for them.
  Several months ago, Bob Woodruff presented an amazing television 
series to us about traumatic brain injury and its impact on men and 
women as they make their way through medical hold and finally go out 
and get into communities and are lost in the system. Traumatic brain 
injury is not something that can be treated today and you are fine 
tomorrow. It is a lifelong, debilitating injury. We do not have out in 
the country today the capability of making sure those men and women are 
not lost.
  We have seen too many times, when men and women who have post-
traumatic stress syndrome can't keep a job, and they find themselves at 
home and, tragically, cases of suicide because of that.
  We have to address the costs and the issues that face our men and 
women, and proudly stand here and make sure we are doing everything we 
can. This year, with the Democratically controlled majority, we have 
finally moved forward for the first time to put in place a strong 
budget to take care of our veterans. We have finally, for the first 
time when we passed the supplemental war spending, actually added 
dollars to care for our veterans.
  Today the step we are taking has more to do with the policies these 
men and women fight when they come home. They are in a system in the 
service that rates them one way, and when they finally get discharged, 
they go through a veterans system that rates them in an entirely 
different way. The two systems do not talk to each other. They do not 
electronically talk to each other. Soldiers lose their medical forms. 
They are fighting systems. They can't get the benefits they deserve 
because they are fighting paperwork.
  No one should fight for our country overseas and come home and have 
to fight paperwork. That is what this amendment will do, is make sure, 
finally, that the VA and the DOD speak in the same language and treat 
these men and women as a single person and not just a pile of 
paperwork.
  This amendment has teeth. It will require the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Veterans Affairs for the very first time to come 
back to us by January 1 of next year with a series of comprehensive 
policies that will make sure our rating systems are the same; that 
their electronic systems that track our men and women speak to each 
other; that no one gets lost because their advocate is dealing with his 
or her own health care issues. It will make sure we can go back with 
pride to the men and women who have served us and say we have made a 
tremendous effort for them.
  We have seen partisan battles through many years on the floor of the 
Senate. Today we are going to see a time when we come together as 
Republicans and Democrats to say there is one group of Americans who 
deserve us to speak with one voice, and that is the men and women who 
have served us. Regardless of how we feel about this war, regardless of 
how we want to end it--I want to end it more than anyone--I want to 
make sure the men and women who served us are taken care of. This 
amendment makes a dramatic step forward.
  I think it is important to know, even if we were able to get enough 
votes to end this war today, the men and women who have served us will 
need our help and our support and our dollars for years to come--
whether they have lost a limb, whether they have traumatic brain 
injury, whether they have post-traumatic stress syndrome. They have 
borne the burden of this war. It is incumbent upon this country to bear 
the burden of their care. This amendment takes a major step forward, 
and I hope today we have 100 percent of the Senators on the floor 
saying yes to the men and women who served us so honorably.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, before the Senator from New York is 
recognized under our unanimous consent agreement, I especially thank 
the Senator from Washington. She has been one extraordinary advocate 
for this cause of our veterans. She is a symbol of the effort that so 
many people in this Senate have put into this legislation, but I just 
want to especially identify her because she, along with Senator Akaka 
and other members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has joined with 
us as one. I thank her particularly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

[[Page S9092]]

  Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my friend, the chairman, if perhaps we might, 
after the Senator from Washington is recognized, by unanimous consent, 
go through the managers' amendments following that and then proceed 
with the debate, or is the Senator from New York also recognized?
  Mr. LEVIN. The sequence is the Senator from New York, then the 
Senator from Delaware. But how long will this take?
  Mr. McCAIN. For us to go through the package, a maximum of 3 or 4 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Are we ready with the list?
  Mr. McCAIN. If that is all right, maybe between the two Senators we 
can do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I wish to thank both my 
colleague from Michigan, who does such a profoundly great effort on 
these proposals and these bills, for the thought and the care and the 
sensibility that goes into it. I also wished to say that my colleague 
from Washington, I wished to add my voice, she has been a clarion 
voice, talking about veterans and their needs and their care long 
before the issue was front and center, long before the Walter Reed 
scandal emerged, long before we were able to take over the Senate and 
put the money of this Nation where its voice has been, and that is 
behind our veterans.
  Now, the amendment that was offered that my colleague from Washington 
talked about, the dignified treatment of wounded warriors, to honor 
those who serve us with medical care and treatment they need is another 
opportunity to demonstrate our support for our troops.
  I hope my colleagues will all join us in this amendment and do what 
is right for those who serve. Unfortunately, yesterday, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle blocked another effort to support our 
troops with appropriate time at home between deployments. Yesterday 
they blocked Senator Webb's amendment addressing the serious challenges 
our military is facing both abroad and home.
  I am disappointed that most of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle felt it was more important to simply go along with the wishes of 
the President than support our troops, the brave men and women who are 
fighting for us in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  We are putting our most valuable military resource at risk by failing 
to provide our troops with the resources they need to complete their 
mission. By that, I mean we are not allowing them enough time to 
recover in between their deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.
  My State is home to one of the Nation's finest military academies, if 
not the finest in the United States, the U.S. Military Academy at West 
Point. West Point produces many of our military's finest leaders.
  But while West Point continues to produce excellent soldiers, the 
Army is unable to keep them. Unfortunately, graduates of West Point are 
leaving the military at five times the rate they did before the Iraq 
war. Roughly half of the West Point classes of 2000 and 2001 have left 
the Army. That is an extremely severe indictment of the President's 
policies in Iraq.
  When these patriots, these young men and women who want to serve 
their country and enroll in this great institution leave so quickly, 
which has been uncharacteristic, it says something very severe about 
the wrong direction our Nation's military policy is pursuing.
  That is not all. This January, 3,200 members of the valiant 10th 
Mountain Division, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, stationed in Fort Drum, NY, 
learned that their tour had been extended by 4 months. They had been 
fighting in Afghanistan for nearly 12 months and found out, right as 
they were to come home, they would have to remain in Afghanistan for an 
additional 4 months.
  That is why I supported Senator Webb's amendment. We have asked so 
much our of our brave men and women who continue to sacrifice their 
lives and place themselves in harm's way to defend our Nation. At the 
current troop rotation rate, we are simply running our troops into the 
ground.
  This hurts us at home, both in declining retention rates and the rise 
of mental health issues associated with multiple deployments to Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  As I have said before, I am disappointed that some have felt it was 
more important to support the President than to support the troops, the 
brave men and women who are fighting for us in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  But despite the refusal of the other side to join us in the Webb 
amendment, Congress will not stop supporting our troops, as we carry on 
the fight to transform our failing policy in Iraq to a mission that 
reflects the current situation on the ground.
  When the President vetoed our supplemental spending bill, we vowed 
that we would continue to ratchet up the pressure as the President 
becomes more and more isolated in his views. Well, here we are. This 
week we in Congress continue to work toward a solution in Iraq that 
changes our mission from policing a civil war to more on what should be 
our first and foremost goal, counterterrorism. Now the pressure on this 
administration is rising as the people speak out and demand change and 
more and more Republicans are joining with us and the Democratic 
Congress in looking toward a change in mission for our troops.
  As more Republicans join us in our fight to transform the mission on 
the ground, the President has only responded with threats and empty 
rhetoric. So let me be clear: President Bush has to realize we are not 
going to give up our goal of changing our mission. We will not back 
down, we will not be deterred, we will not rest until the mission 
changes; that mission that costs $10 billion a month, because this 
administration has continued to pursue its policy in fear, empty words, 
charges that people are not patriotic, charges that people are not 
supporting the troops, even though that is exactly what we are trying 
to do here and have been doing. That is not going to work. This debate 
is not going away.

  Even though the President continues to stall, telling the country to 
wait until September when his general issues a report that everyone 
else in our country and around the world already seems to know, that 
our current policy in Iraq is not working, we will move now to change 
the course in Iraq.
  The President would be wise to work with us to change the mission 
now, not wait until September when this report is issued. If the report 
had any degree of honesty or integrity, it will show that the mission 
is not working.
  I speak to soldiers all the time, from NCOs and privates to one- and 
two-star generals. So many of them, when they talk to you privately, 
believe the mission is not, cannot, and will not work. It seems almost 
everyone knows this. There are many in the military, particularly in 
the higher ranks, who are loyal to the President, as they should be; he 
is the Commander in Chief, but in the hearts and minds of so many of 
our soldiers, they know the policy is not working.
  Every day that we wait, our troops continue to be caught in the 
dangerous crosshairs of a civil war; every day that we wait, the 
American people grow more dissatisfied with our failed strategy; every 
day we wait, more members of your party realize we must change course 
and call for it.
  So the Senate, led by Chairman Levin and our great military expert in 
this body, the only West Point graduate in this body, Senator Jack Reed 
of Rhode Island, the Senate has an opportunity to send the President 
even tougher language regarding our policies regarding Iraq.
  This amendment does all the right things. It changes the current 
mission to force protection, training Iraqi security forces, and 
performing targeted counterterrorism operations. But it also calls for 
a substantial reduction in our forces in Iraq by next April, and it 
requires these changes. It is not laudatory, wishful thinking such as 
some of the other amendments. It is the only amendment that is before 
us that requires a change of course in Iraq.
  That is the right policy for many reasons. First, our troops are 
caught in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. They patrol the streets of 
Baghdad, while Sunnis and Shias shoot at one another. Our soldiers are 
caught in the crossfire. That is not where they belong; a point

[[Page S9093]]

that I, along with many of my colleagues, have been making for a long 
time.
  It is clear the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds dislike each other 
more than they like any central government of Iraq. No number of 
American troops will change that no matter how hard they try and how 
valiant they are. The Sunnis, Shias and Kurds also have to work this 
out for themselves.
  Second, we need to focus on Afghanistan, where the planning for 9/11 
took place, where al-Qaida is growing in strength. We are not nearly 
doing enough in Afghanistan to counteract the ever-increasing 
production of opium there, a problem that threatens the ever fragile 
Government.
  Not only does opium production fuel the heroin trade around the 
globe, but the heroin funds terrorists who aim to attack the United 
States and our allies around the world.
  Our soldiers have fought long and hard to rid Afghanistan of 
terrorists and Taliban. However, as the drug trade continues to surge 
and consume the Nation, their heroic efforts may be undone. The Taliban 
draws its strength from the drug trade in order to prevent them from 
reclaiming the country. We need to crack down on the drugs that fuel 
their regime.
  Secretary Chertoff's report said al-Qaida is stronger today than it 
was before 9/11. That is as severe an indictment of the President's 
Iraq policy as there could be. The very forces who struck us on 9/11 
are growing stronger in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and around the world, 
while we are bogged down in Iraq.
  Could there be any fact that demands change more than that? We were 
attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaida. The next day, 2 days, 3 days later, I was 
there as the President stood on that pile of rubble and took the 
megaphone from the firefighter and said: We will beat al-Qaida and we 
will beat the terrorists.
  They are now stronger than they were before that day. What is wrong? 
Characteristically and depressingly, the President said al-Qaida is 
actually weaker than before 9/11, contradicting the report released by 
his Secretary of Homeland Security.
  The President says al-Qaida is weaker. The Secretary of Homeland 
Security has issued a report saying they are stronger. This is so 
typically unfortunate of this administration. This is a rerun of the 
weapons of mass destruction issue that occurred long ago. Make up your 
mind on what you want to do, ignore all the facts, and no matter what 
the people around you say, no matter what the American people say, vote 
for it.
  Unfortunately, we have become bogged down in a civil war in Iraq no 
one has bargained for, as al-Qaida grows stronger in other parts of the 
world. Being caught in the crosshairs of a sectarian struggle not only 
puts our troops in harm's way, it means we are not focusing our 
resources, our energy, and our soldiers on what is the most important 
thing, which is defeating al-Qaida and terrorists.
  Our mission today was not the original mission, and that is why we 
must change, why it must change to put the focus back on 
counterterrorism. Every day we continue to follow the President's Iraq 
policy is another day al-Qaida can strengthen.
  That is not just my assessment. That is the feeling of this Congress, 
including more and more Members on the other side of the aisle; it is 
the feeling of a majority of the American people and so many in the 
intelligence agencies.
  Today, the President claimed there are some signs of success in Iraq. 
But this administration's sign of success is very different than most 
peoples'. The Government of Iraq has failed to meet few of the 
legislative benchmarks set out by the administration itself. Violence 
in Baghdad and across Iraq continues unabated. Thousands of refugees 
are fleeing Iraq every day. Iran continues to support efforts to 
destabilize the region. Yet the administration still refuses to admit 
we need to change our failing policy in Iraq.
  President Bush and his few remaining allies continue to cling to the 
fiction that our present course can somehow turn the situation around. 
The American people know better. This Congress knows better. That is 
why we keep pushing and pushing and pushing to change the mission in 
Iraq to one that reflects the reality on the ground.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Levin-Reed amendment. It is 
the only amendment that requires a change in direction in Iraq. All of 
the others have good intentions, but they are hortatory. They are 
offered with good intentions, but they allow people to say: I want a 
change in policy, but I am not going to force the President to do so. 
The American people know better. They know that if you really want to 
change the course of what we are doing in Iraq and change the course in 
the war on terror, then you must support Levin-Reed. You can't stand 
for something that says: Well, please, Mr. President, consider doing 
this, as the other amendments do, because the President won't. The 
President has been intransigent despite all of the facts on the ground. 
It is clear this administration has lost its way in Iraq, and this 
amendment charts the right course forward and requires them to follow 
it. Despite the stubbornness of the administration, despite their 
continuing to ignore what is happening in this world, we need to 
transform our mission in Iraq, and we must do it now.
  I hope, I pray, for the future of our war on terror and for the 
future of this country, that the Levin-Reed amendment gets the required 
60 votes and we move forward as a nation together and set our policy 
right once and for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, Senator Carper had to leave the Chamber 
for a moment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin now be 
recognized and then Senator Carper be recognized under the sequence 
previously ordered. That is always subject to a Republican coming 
because they would be interspersed among the listed Senators on this 
side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I salute the Senator from Michigan. As 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he brings an important bill 
to the floor. This is a bill which decides how we are going to 
authorize funds for America's military. We are enjoying the blessings 
of liberty in this country because of men and women in uniform who are 
willing to fight and die and keep this land free. This bill each year 
tries to make certain they have the resources to fight and be 
effective, to keep America safe. It is a huge responsibility with which 
this committee and this chairman have been entrusted. I thank the 
chairman, Senator Levin, and his Republican counterpart, Senator 
McCain, for their fine work.
  I wish to echo the words said by Senator Schumer about the amendments 
before us. One of the most important elements of this debate is what is 
going to happen in Iraq. If we don't make a decision in Congress to 
change the direction in Iraq, we all know what will occur. President 
Bush has made it clear. He has said he will leave it to the next 
President to start removing troops. That means 18 more months of war. 
It means 18 more months of American casualties. It means 18 more months 
of expense for American taxpayers. It means a war that will continue 
with no end in sight. We have it within our power in the Senate through 
this bill to change that course, to have a new direction in Iraq.
  I will support the amendment offered by Senator Levin and Senator 
Jack Reed of Rhode Island. They have been two of our best leaders on 
this issue because they are so committed to it and study it so 
carefully. They have it right.
  The Levin-Reed amendment says that within 120 days, American soldiers 
will start coming home. It says that by April 1 of next year, our 
mission will change. We will no longer have a combat force protecting 
Iraq. We will have specific, defined missions. Our combat forces will 
come out. We will be there to fight the al-Qaida terrorists, to train 
Iraqi soldiers, and to protect American assets and the American 
soldiers who are coming home. That is it. At that point, the Iraqis 
have to take over. It is their country. It is their future. At some 
point, they have to stand up and assume the responsibility. The Levin-
Reed amendment says explicitly that is what we are going to do.
  There are many other amendments that will be considered. Some of my

[[Page S9094]]

closest friends are going to offer amendments. Senator Ken Salazar and 
Senator Lamar Alexander have a bipartisan amendment to bring in the 
Iraq Study Group approach. There is nothing wrong with the Iraq Study 
Group. We praised the Iraq Study Group when they made their report last 
December. Had the President lived by their recommendations, we might be 
in a different place at this moment in time. But we are not. We are 
embroiled in this war, and we need to change it.
  I have read the Salazar-Alexander amendment in its entirety. I can 
tell you that if you vote for this amendment, not a single soldier will 
come home, not one. They leave to the President the authority to make 
the decision about when to end this war. We know what his view is. This 
President is out of touch with the reality in Iraq. He is out of touch 
with the American people. The Salazar-Alexander amendment will not 
change that. The Levin-Reed amendment will. It will say to the 
President that the American people, through their elected 
representatives in the Senate, want to change this policy, and we will 
do it by law. That is the way to change it, not by sending a message to 
the President hoping for the best.
  I will support the Levin-Reed amendment. I believe the Salazar-
Alexander amendment would have been a good thing to do a year ago when 
the Iraq Study Group issued its report. Today, it doesn't reach the 
result we want to reach in an effective time.


                           amendment no. 2019

  I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their work 
on the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act being offered today 
as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of this effort.
  I also would like to thank Senators Warner, Murray, Graham, Obama, 
Webb, Hagel, Cantwell, Clinton, and Baucus, who are co-sponsors of my 
Military and Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment Act--much of 
which is included in the amendment before us today.
  Traumatic brain injury is the signature injury of the Iraq war. The 
widespread use of Improvised Explosive Devices, IEDs, has taken a 
terrible toll. Even those who have walked off the battlefield without 
visible scars often find they have suffered the internal trauma of a 
traumatic brain injury.
  The provisions from my bill that have been included in this amendment 
will reduce the number of our wounded soldiers who fall through the 
cracks and are left to fend for themselves as they struggle to recover 
from a traumatic brain injury.
  We have made tremendous progress in battlefield medical care.
  During Vietnam, one in three service members who were injured died. 
In Iraq and Afghanistan, 1 in 16 who are injured die. But with the 
changes in warfare and in medical technology, more of our service 
members are coming home with serious brain injuries from Iraq and 
Afghanistan than from any other recent conflicts.
  For some of these wounded warriors, the greatest battle comes at home 
when they seek care. Many of these returning troops need long-term 
treatment and rehabilitation long after their discharge from active 
duty, as they fight to overcome the severe disabilities that a 
traumatic brain injury can cause.
  For others, there is a different story. Some service members don't 
even realize they have suffered a traumatic brain injury until long 
after their discharge, because we don't do a very good job of 
identifying and treating those who may have suffered a brain injury.
  Fortunately, many of those who suffer a brain injury are able to 
recover fairly quickly. But for some, the experience is life-altering, 
even life-shattering. We must not fail them in their time of need.
  Consider the case of SGT Eric Edmundson. In October 2005, he suffered 
a severe head concussion when a roadside bomb exploded near him. He was 
cared for at Walter Reed Hospital, but then was transferred to a VA 
facility where he and his family felt he was not receiving the kind of 
treatment that would allow him to continue to make progress in 
rehabilitation.
  He would have been stuck there if the family had not found a creative 
way to obtain the care he needed by ensuring that Eric could receive 
treatment and rehabilitation at one of the premiere rehabilitation 
hospitals in the nation: the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. Two 
weeks ago, I attended a ceremony at the Rehabilitation Institute of 
Chicago in which Eric walked out of the hospital.
  Now consider the case of SGT Garrett Anderson of Champaign, IL. 
Garrett went to Iraq with the Illinois National Guard. After 4 months 
there, an IED exploded next to his armored humvee in Baghdad. The blast 
tore off his right arm below the elbow, shattered his jaw, severed part 
of his tongue, damaged his hearing, and punctured his body with 
shrapnel.
  He spent 7 months at Walter Reed, where he received excellent care in 
Ward 57, the famous amputee ward. However, the outpatient care that 
followed has been filled with paperwork and redtape. It was months 
before the VA recognized that Garrett had suffered a traumatic brain 
injury, and he has not received the kind of treatment for brain injury 
that could make a significant difference in the trajectory of his 
rehabilitation.
  We need to change the way we handle patients with traumatic brain 
injury, so that they receive the care they need at the time they need 
it, and the provisions from my Military and Veterans Traumatic Brain 
Injury Treatment Act that have been included in this amendment will do 
just that.
  These provisions include: requiring the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Veterans Administration, to 
develop a comprehensive program to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, 
and otherwise respond to traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic 
stress disorder; and requiring predeployment cognitive screening as a 
baseline for evaluating potential brain injuries.
  Other principles from my bill have been included in this broader 
amendment to apply to all service members, and not only those who have 
suffered from traumatic brain injuries. For example, this amendment 
would require: a uniform policy and procedures to ease a service 
member's transition from the DOD to VA; a 3-year period in which a 
medically retired service member can obtain the same medical benefits 
as those on active duty; a joint electronic health record for DOD and 
VA; and outreach to members and their families regarding the benefits 
to which they are entitled.
  Indeed, we must do much more for all of our wounded warriors, and the 
dignified treatment of wounded warriors amendment is a comprehensive 
policy governing their care. This bipartisan amendment also would 
require: medical care and job placement services for family members 
providing care for severely injured service members; establishment of 
Centers of Excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, 
treatment, and rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury and post-
traumatic stress disorder; improvements in the disability system for 
service members; and improved housing facilities for injured patients.
  Our Nation's service members deserve swift action on this effort to 
improve the treatment they will receive if they are wounded or suffer a 
traumatic brain injury.
  I can't imagine the anguish that must be associated with such an 
injury, but I can imagine the kind of medical system I would like to 
have in place if it were my son or daughter struggling to recover from 
such an injury. This legislation reflects that vision.
  I thank all of my colleagues who have contributed to this legislation 
and I urge all Senators to support this measure.
  I wish to elaborate on a story as to why I have added provisions in 
this amendment. This is about American soldiers coming home who are 
wounded and how they are treated. Those of us--and I think it includes 
almost everyone in the Senate who has taken the time to go to military 
hospitals and VA hospitals--know that, sadly, after promising to these 
men and women that if they will take the oath to defend America, we 
will stand by them when they come home, we have broken our promise time 
and again.
  This story illustrates why this is needed and why I have added some 
language which I hope will help. It is the

[[Page S9095]]

story of a brave young soldier named Eric Edmundson, 7 years in the 
Army, 27 years of age, who suffered a traumatic brain injury in Iraq. 
As a result of that injury, he went through surgery, and during the 
course of surgery, there was a problem: His brain was deprived of 
oxygen for a period of time. He was rushed to Walter Reed Hospital, 
where he went through more surgery and more effort and then finally was 
discharged from Walter Reed to Richmond, VA, to the VA hospital. Eric 
went into that hospital in a very bad state. He really hadn't made much 
of a recovery. His father, his mother, his wife, and his sister were 
all by his side praying for the best and hoping for the best treatment.
  After a period of time, the people at the Richmond VA hospital came 
to the family and said: We have bad news about Eric. We need for you to 
pick out a wheelchair because he is going to spend the rest of his life 
in a wheelchair in a nursing home. His father says not only no, but 
hell no; I am going to fight for my son; he is not going to spend the 
rest of his life sitting in this wheelchair. His father quit his job in 
North Carolina and became a full-time advocate for his son, this fallen 
soldier. He fought the Government to make sure his son had the best. 
Let me tell you what happened.
  Eventually, he went on the Internet and found the Rehab Institute of 
Chicago, one of the best. He insisted that his son go to this rehab 
institute. The Government said they wouldn't pay for it. He said: I am 
sending him anyway. He had him admitted and finally persuaded the 
Government to start paying for his treatment.
  Ten weeks ago, I walked into the hospital room of Eric Edmundson. 
Here was this bright, smiling young man sitting in a wheelchair. He 
followed me with his eyes as I walked into the room, and I stood before 
him and said: Eric, how are you doing? He can't speak. He just smiled, 
looked at me, and nothing happened.
  Four weeks ago, I went back to that hospital room to visit with the 
family and this young soldier. His mom and dad said: Eric has a present 
for you. I thought: What could this be? They walked over and they 
propped him up by his elbows, and he took four steps. There wasn't a 
dry eye in that hospital room. We were all crying, including Eric. He 
was walking.
  His dad said to me--and this was right before Memorial Day: A month 
from now, he is going to walk out of the front door of this hospital. I 
was there on June 30, the day of his official discharge. Eric Edmundson 
walked out of the front door of that hospital. He had been given up on 
by a VA system that didn't have the 35 years of experience the Rehab 
Institute of Chicago has. He had been given up on by so many others. 
But America can't give up on these soldiers. We can't relegate a 27-
year-old soldier to a lifetime in a nursing home because we are afraid 
to refer him to the best hospital in America. That is wrong.
  This amendment will help. This amendment for our wounded warriors 
will help them move forward in the system and have greater 
opportunities. Sad to say, it doesn't go far enough. There has to be a 
point in this system where the military hospitals of America and the VA 
hospitals will concede there may be a better hospital for this soldier, 
this sailor, this marine, this airman, and we cannot deny them that 
care. We have to give them that care. This bill doesn't include that. I 
am disappointed.
  We asked these brave young men and women to fight our enemies 
overseas. They shouldn't come home wounded and have to fight their 
Government. That is what the Edmundson family had to do. We should make 
certain no other family of any other soldier ever faces that in the 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there was an agreement previously that we 
would alternate back and forth. If that is what Senator Isakson is 
seeking to implement, they have a right to do so. I would note to 
Senator Carper that we did agree that if a Republican did wish to 
speak, they would be recognized in an alternate way.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following sequence be accepted for 
the Democratic Senators, subject to that same understanding that 
Republican Senators would be interspersed: After Senator Carper, 
Senator McCaskill, Senator Brown, and then Senator Lincoln would be the 
order on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, in relation to that unanimous consent, I 
ask unanimous consent that following the presentation by Senator Carper 
from Delaware, Senator Hutchison of Texas be the next one recognized on 
our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, we have had a tenuous debate, and it is 
going to go a while. I first commend Senator Levin on this amendment. I 
am proud to be a cosponsor of it. Although we have differences on many 
things, I don't think there is a difference in this Chamber on the 
provision of services and health care to our wounded warriors as they 
come home. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have been 
pleased to work with Senator Akaka and Senator Craig on many of the 
provisions in this legislation. I thank Senator Carper for allowing me 
to take a few minutes.
  I appreciate the remarks by the Senator from Illinois about what he 
has done in this bill. As I listened to many of the discussions about 
the things we need to fix, I think sometimes we forget to remember all 
the things we are doing well. I wish to talk about two things.
  One, I wish to let the men and women of the U.S. Department of 
Defense medical services and the Veterans' Administration know how much 
I appreciate what they are trying to do and what they have been trying 
to do. Let me illustrate that by telling a very brief story.
  I go to Walter Reed periodically anytime there is a wounded Georgia 
veteran there. I also see other veterans, but I make it a point to make 
sure that the parents or a spouse of every one of those veterans has my 
phone number and knows they have an advocate in Washington as long as 
they are at Walter Reed.
  One of my visits to Walter Reed just happened to be on the Monday 
following the breakout of the story about building 19 or 18, the 
building that was in bad shape. That was a national story and reflected 
poorly on Walter Reed and on us.
  When I got there, I first went to visit Corporal Pearson, a Georgian, 
actually from my home county, who had been wounded. I gave him my phone 
number, and asked for his father's phone number. I left from there to 
go to see Building 18. I went over there and saw the condition Building 
18 was in, and I, too, knew we could do much better.
  On the way to my office at Russell, I called from my car on my cell 
phone to the corporal's father and left a message for him to call me 
back. He called me that night. I told him how much I appreciated his 
son's service, and I wanted him to know, while he and his wife were in 
Georgia and his son was at Walter Reed, they could use me as a family 
member, if they would, to give them any assistance he might need at the 
hospital.
  He thanked me for that. He said: Senator Isakson, just do one thing 
for me. I have been watching all this on the news about that building, 
and I am sorry about that, but if anybody asks you, tell them my son 
has been in Walter Reed for 10 days, and my wife and I were with him 
every day until yesterday, and I have never seen anybody receive finer 
care.
  I pass that on not to in any way mask those places where we do have 
difficulties and need improvement--many of them recognized in this 
particular amendment--but as we talk about things we want to make 
better, we cannot forget that day in and day out the loyal American 
service men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces medical corps at Walter 
Reed and in the VA who are doing a phenomenal, lifesaving job, a better 
job than has ever been done in the history of warfare. I want to put in 
that compliment and pat on the back for them.
  Secondly, with regard to the wounded warrior amendment, this 
addresses so many things we have learned from the trauma of the types 
of wounds that are coming from the type of warfare we are fighting in 
Iraq. We are saving so many more of our wounded warriors on the 
battlefield, but because of that we

[[Page S9096]]

have many more who need long-time care, long-time attention, and 
specific attention. This wounded warrior amendment goes a long way 
toward doing that.
  I particularly compliment the authors of the amendment, and all of us 
on the Veterans Committee, on the new referral system that is put in 
here for the diagnosis of PTSD, and how that has been greatly improved 
in the number of people who can actually make that referral back to 
Veterans Affairs or the Veterans' Administration or back to DOD, if 
they are still on active duty.
  I also want to brag for a second about General Shoomaker at Walter 
Reed. One of the things we talk about--and Senator Durbin's remarks 
addressed this--is the difficulty we have been having with the handoff 
of health care from leaving DOD to going to the VA. That has been a 
problem, and we have a record number of people who are being handed off 
once their service is over, while they still have treatment necessary, 
from DOD to VA.
  General Shoomaker was at Fort Gordon in Georgia prior to coming to 
Walter Reed, when he was asked to come in and straighten out the 
difficulties Walter Reed had. While at Fort Gordon, General Schoomaker 
had been the real catalyst for what is said in the military to be the 
best seamless transfer of wounded warriors from DOD to the Veterans 
Administration.
  Today, now, for those who are coming home with amputations, who are 
in need of long-term therapy, long-term treatment, long-term care, who 
go from active duty, are severed honorably, to go into veterans status, 
they have created a seamless transfer in that rehab at Augusta, which 
is recognized as second to none. I know the recommendations in this 
amendment which will be adopted by this body will go a long way toward 
improving the systems by which those transfers take place.
  I am pleased to rise to thank those in our military and the care they 
give, and know there are areas where we can do better. I commend 
Senator Levin and the many cosponsors of this particular amendment for 
all the work and time that has gone into it.
  As we have a very tenuous and difficult debate, it is important for 
the American people to know every Member of this Congress appreciates 
the care that is given by our military doctors and our military medical 
personnel and understands we can do better. As we deal with the trauma 
that comes from the type of conflict we are now in, this wounded 
warriors amendment will see to it that the care, the referral, the 
diagnosis, the treatment, and the transfer are better now than they 
have ever been before.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask to be advised when I have consumed 
20 minutes of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator from 
Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I come today to address the Chamber and our colleagues on the subject 
of cost-effective airlift in the 21st century. Before I do that, 
though, I wish to preface my remarks with this:
  Today, we have received an interim report from the administration on 
whether progress is being made in Iraq--specifically, progress with 
respect to the 18 benchmarks that were required in legislation we 
enacted in May of this year. From the news accounts this morning, there 
are few surprises. The U.S. military, as expected, is doing its job--a 
tough job. The problem is, the Iraqi Government and too many of its 
elected leaders are not.
  The Iraqi Parliament remains hamstrung by profound, seemingly 
irreconcilable differences. Despite months of American prodding, the 
Iraqi lawmakers have yet to agree on any of the major issues before 
them: how to share oil wealth, how to share power, when to schedule 
elections, de-Baathification, how to settle the sectarian differences 
that so badly divide their country.
  We also have news this morning that al-Qaida is once again on the 
move, bringing to the forefront how the President's policies in Iraq 
have effectively created not fewer terrorists but more and, 
unfortunately, made our country, I fear, less safe.
  According to U.S. intelligence estimates, al-Qaida has rebuilt its 
operations to levels we have not seen since just before the September 
11 attacks. These reports indicate that the al-Qaida network is 
regrouping along the Afghan-Pakistani border. The CIA says there is 
evidence of more training, more money, more communications, and 
increased activity among al-Qaida. The results of such activity, as we 
know too well, could be deadly.
  This new report tells me we have diverted too many of our resources 
to fighting a war that simply cannot be won by military might alone, 
and in doing so we have lost ground on the war on terror. Osama bin 
Laden remains at large 6 years after 9/11, and has seemingly taken 
peaceful refuge somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan. That is 
unacceptable.
  This week and next, we are going to be taking a series of votes on 
how best to change the course in Iraq and refocus our energy on where 
it belongs--rooting out al-Qaida and going after their terrorist 
networks abroad and at home in a way that makes sense and will better 
guarantee success.
  Part of that means, beginning later this year, that we begin to 
redeploy a portion of our troops from Iraq to put additional pressure 
on, and encouragement for, the Iraqi Government to do what it must do 
to help bring peace to their nation. Part of that means refocusing our 
efforts on how to win the war on terror, smoke out Osama bin Laden, 
and, in doing so, make our world a safer place.
  I hope our President will work with our colleagues and with me to 
chart a winning course on the war on terror. We cannot get there alone. 
This is something we must do together.
  Having said that, I want to now focus on cost-effective airlift in 
the 21st century.
  The Senate is writing legislation this week intended to equip our 
Armed Forces to meet our national security threats and keep our country 
safe. Doing so is one of the foremost responsibilities of this body.
  Our Armed Forces are charged with providing our Commander in Chief 
with flexible options for responding to a wide variety of threats 
across the globe. In Iraq, our Armed Forces are keeping the lid on a 
civil war and protecting civilians from terrorists.
  In Korea, our Armed Forces are charged with guarding an ally's border 
and deterring aggression on the part of a large conventional military.
  In the Pacific and the Persian Gulf, our Armed Forces protect 
American interests through the projection of naval power and carrier-
based air power.
  At home, our National Guard provides our Nation's Governors with 
critical response capability to cope with natural disaster, such as 
Hurricane Katrina.
  At times, it can seem as though the demands on our military are 
practically limitless. Unfortunately, the resources available for 
equipping our military to meet these demands are not. At a time when 
our Federal budget remains mired in the red, we need to be looking for 
ways to meet our military requirements in a fiscally responsible 
manner.
  I have come to the floor today to talk about one way we can do that. 
I have come to the floor, as I have said, to discuss cost-effective 
airlift in the 21st century.
  Although the air men and women of our strategic airlift fleet rarely 
receive the attention they deserve, the reality is our military could 
not perform any of their missions I described if it were not for their 
hard work and dedication. Strategic airlift involves the use of cargo 
aircraft to move personnel, weaponry, and material over long 
distances--often to combat theaters on the other side of the globe. 
During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. aircraft moved over 500,000 troops 
and more than 540,000 tons of cargo. During the current war in Iraq, 
airlift sorties have made up the majority of the nearly 30,000 total 
sorties flown by U.S. military aircraft.
  Strategic airlift enables our military to respond to threats wherever 
they occur in the world real time. Not only must our fighting men and 
women be transported to the fight, they must be continuously 
resupplied. Airlift makes that possible.

[[Page S9097]]

  Most of the supplies, materiel, and weaponry moves abroad aboard 
ships. Almost all of our personnel and a good deal of cargo, however, 
are transported by aircraft. That airlift is provided by a combination 
of U.S. military airlift and commercial aircraft. The three military 
aircraft doing most of the heavy lifting are the C-5, the C-17, and the 
C-130. Together, they provide what I call an ``air bridge''--an ``air 
bridge''--to Iraq, Afghanistan, and to other troubled spots around the 
world.
  Over the past 10 years, the United States has reduced its Cold War 
infrastructure and closed some two-thirds of its forward bases. 
Therefore, to maintain the same level of global engagement, U.S. forces 
must now deploy more frequently and over greater distances. Since 9/11, 
the scale and pace of operations has increased dramatically.
  There have been several efforts in recent years to quantify our 
military's strategic airlift requirement. The most recent one is the 
Mobility Capabilities Study, which was commissioned by the Pentagon, 
and was completed in February of last year. It concluded that the 
Nation's airlift requirement could be met with a fleet of 112 C-5s and 
180 C-17s.
  Our current strategic airlift fleet--including aircraft currently 
flying and aircraft on order--consists of 111 C-5s and 190 C-17s. An 
update to the Mobility Capabilities Study included in the President's 
budget this year confirmed that this mix is sufficient to meet our 
airlift needs.
  The problem at the moment is not that we have too few aircraft; the 
problem is that most of the C-5s in our airlift fleet are not as 
reliable as they could be. There are two ways in which we could choose 
to address this problem: One, we could fix the aircraft we have, or, 
two, we could purchase new aircraft.
  Families face a similar choice when they have a problem with their 
car. Should they fix their car or should they buy a new one? Usually 
families make this decision based on one of three factors: Can the car 
they have be fixed? If it can, is it cheaper to fix than buying a new 
one? If the car can be fixed, and it is cheaper to fix than buying a 
new one, do they have so much money that they can afford--in spite of 
the greater cost--to go ahead and buy a new car anyhow?
  We should ask ourselves the same question when it comes to paying for 
military aircraft within the confines of a responsible Federal budget.
  Let's look at this first chart about meeting our Nation's airlift 
needs. We pose on the chart three questions: Can the aircraft we have 
be fixed? Can they be fixed for less than the cost of purchasing new 
aircraft? Or, finally, can we afford to buy new aircraft anyhow, even 
if it is unnecessary and more costly?
  The answer to the first question is, yes, the aircraft can be fixed. 
The answer to the second question--can it be fixed for less than 
purchasing a new aircraft--is, yes, it can. Can we afford to buy new 
aircraft anyhow, even though it is unnecessary and may be more costly? 
The answer to that, I believe, is no.
  First, let's consider the question of whether the aircraft we have 
can be fixed. There are currently programs in place to fix C-5s. The C-
5s are being upgraded with new engines, new hydraulics, new avionics, 
and more than 70 other improvements throughout the aircraft. The 
contractor responsible for these upgrades has committed to the Air 
Force that the improvements to these aircraft will result in at least a 
75-percent mission capable rate. That is up from 60, 65 percent today.
  If that level of reliability can be achieved, our current fleet of C-
5s and C-17s is sufficient to meet our airlift needs now and for the 
foreseeable future. That is the conclusion of both the military's 
latest analyses of our airlift needs and an independent study done by 
the Institute for Defense Analyses. To date, 3 C-5s--one a C-5A and two 
of them C-5Bs--have received the complete upgrades that are eventually 
planned for the entire C-5 fleet. General Schwartz, who is commander of 
the U.S. Transportation Command, has said he is encouraged by the 
performance of these aircraft and believes the target mission-capable 
rate of at least 75 percent will be met and possibly exceeded. General 
Schwartz isn't the only one giving the modernized flights high praise.

  One of the modernized B models came to the Dover Air Force Base about 
2 months ago for their annual inspection. I had the opportunity to see 
it and talk to the crew. I asked one of the pilots aboard the aircraft 
who has some 4,000 flight hours on the C-5, ``How does it fly?'' His 
response: ``Like a rocket.''
  While most acknowledge that C-5s can be fixed, there are those who 
argue that many of them are not worth fixing. I have heard two versions 
of this argument. The first is that even if most of the fleet can and 
should be fixed, at least 25 or 30 of the older C-5As are such ``bad 
actors'' that they should be retired. Unfortunately, those who have 
made this claim have done little to substantiate their claim. Congress 
has asked the Air Force to provide a list of these bad actors by tail 
number. To date, as far as I know, the Air Force has not done so. A 
recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service suggests a 
possible reason why. Perhaps these bad actors do not exist.
  Let's look at this chart, my second chart here: The C-5 reliability 
argument. These are the words paraphrased from the Congressional 
Research Service: An examination of C-5 reliability and maintainability 
statistics for the past three fiscal years does not identify any 
obvious subset of the C-5 fleet that stands out as notably `bad 
actors.'
  The other version of the ``some of the C-5s are not worth saving'' 
argument draws a line in the sand, not between a set of bad actors and 
the rest of the fleet but between the older C-5As and the newer C-5Bs. 
It is a common perception that the C-5As do not perform as well as the 
C-5Bs, but that perception again is contradicted by the facts. Again, 
to quote the CRS study, the recent CRS study--I think it was released a 
couple of months ago:

       C-5A performance and reliability is not uniformly inferior 
     to C-5B performance. Over the past three years, for example, 
     the C-5A fleet has averaged a higher mission departure 
     reliability rate of over 83 percent than the C-5B fleet, 
     which is right around 81 percent.

  However, some claim that even if C-5As are not uniformly less 
reliable, inevitably they will incur structural problems because they 
are older than the C-5B models. This claim continues to be made even 
after the Air Force established a Fleet Viability Board in 2003 to 
evaluate the C-5A fleet and render judgment on the suitability for its 
continued service. The board 4 years ago reviewed all the relevant data 
and concluded that the C-5A fleet is structurally sound and viable for 
at least 25 years and probably longer. To be sure--to be sure--the Air 
Force actually tore a C-5A apart in late 2005 to inspect it from top to 
bottom and end to end. The aircraft was given a clean bill of health.
  The evidence at hand strongly suggests, at least to me, that we could 
fix the aircraft we have. Here is the question, though: Can we fix them 
for less than it would cost to replace them with new aircraft? On this 
point, it is not even close.
  Before I go on to explain why that is the case, let me pause for a 
moment to say that as a former naval flight officer--I served 5 years 
active duty, 18 years in the Reserve; I have about 3,500 hours in a P-3 
Navy aircraft. Let me say I am a great admirer of the C-17 aircraft. I 
have supported, and I suspect the Presiding Officer has supported, 
acquisition of additional C-17 aircraft out of the 190 that have been 
bought so far. Having said that, it is a highly reliable workhorse. Its 
mission-capable rate hovers around 85 percent. It can land on large 
airfields and small airstrips, all of which highly commend the aircraft 
to us, and that is why we ordered and bought so many of them. In my own 
State, the Dover Air Force Base has begun receiving a squadron of 13 C-
17s. We are delighted. We are excited. We are enthusiastic about their 
arrival.
  Having said that, let me add that the cost of modernizing a C-5 is 
roughly one-third--let me say that again--the cost of modernizing a C-5 
is roughly one-third the cost of purchasing a new C-17. Modernizing a 
C-5 is roughly one-third of the cost of purchasing a new C-17. 
Moreover, the C-5 can carry twice as much cargo as the C-17. By 
modernizing a C-5, we buy twice as much hauling capacity for one-third 
the cost. Let me say that again. By modernizing a C-5, we can buy twice 
as much hauling capacity for one-third the cost.

[[Page S9098]]

  Now, I know some dispute these figures. First, they argue that 
modernizing a C-5 costs more than one-third of the cost of purchasing a 
new C-17. They do so by suggesting that the C-5 reengineering program 
is experiencing dramatic cost growth. Again, the facts say otherwise. 
According to CRS, claims that the cost of C-5 modernization has risen 
substantially--and this is what CRS says; this is a quote--``appear to 
be somewhat at odds with official cost reports from the Department of 
Defense Comptroller.''
  The Defense 2006 Select Acquisition Report for the C-5 reengineering 
program showed average procurement unit cost growth of under 3 percent. 
Now, it is never good news when a program cost growth goes over 
expectation, even by a little. However, 2.9 percent cost growth is not 
particularly remarkable when compared to other Defense acquisition 
programs.
  Moreover, CRS reports that:

       Projections of future cost growth are driven in large part 
     by the Air Force's decision to slow down the C-5 
     modernization production and to extend it by two years.

  Over the last 5 years, the Air Force has pushed this program further 
and further out into the future--not 2 years but 5 years. Because 
stretching out the program leads to insufficient production rates, 
costs have increased.
  The contractor responsible for modernizing C-5s has offered the Air 
Force a firm fixed-price contract in order to guarantee no more cost 
overruns. All the Air Force has to do to nail down a definite, 
affordable price is not stretch out the program any further. The ball 
is in the Air Force's court. If the Air Force does not choose to keep 
the program on schedule, thereby securing an affordable, fixed price, 
one has to wonder--at least I wonder--whether the Air Force is 
interested in making the most cost-effective choice for taxpayers.
  Advocates of retiring C-5s have also disputed the fact that a C-5 can 
carry twice as much as the C-17. In fact, they have begun to refer to 
C-5s as ``C-17 equivalents'' for purposes of meeting our airlift needs.

  However, the C-5 clearly boasts a greater payload capacity than the 
C-17, as this chart shows. This is the C-5 and C-17 capabilities 
comparison. Let's look at it: The C-5 and the C-17. MA tanks, the C-5 
carries two, the C-17 carries one; Bradleys, the C-5 carries four, the 
C-17 carries two; Apache helicopters, the C-5 carries six, the C-17 
carries three; multiple launch rocket systems, the C-5 carries four, 
the C-17 carries two. And Patriot missile launchers, the C-5 carries 
two and the C-17 carries one.
  Despite the fact its cargo capacity in cubic feet for the C-5 is only 
60 percent greater than the C-17, the C-5 hauls double the load in 
several cases and actually makes more efficient use of its cargo space 
when transporting large weapons systems, I think as we see here. 
Despite the size advantage of the C-5, advocates of retiring the C-5 
still make two arguments to ignore the vehicle's greater hauling 
capacity.
  First, they point out the C-5s currently have reliability problems 
that negate the C-5s' greater size and capacity. The problem with this 
argument is we are addressing C-5 reliability problems through the 
modernization process that our friends in the Air Force continue to 
delay. The second argument I hear for overlooking the C-5's superior 
hauling capacity is it doesn't actually matter in practice. Some claim 
that since both C-5s and C-17s generally fly missions carrying less 
than the full weight they are capable of carrying, it makes little 
sense to compare what they are capable of carrying when fully loaded. 
Well, my office was told the reason C-5s and C-17s generally carry less 
than the capacity is they ``cube out'' first. That means the limiting 
factor is more often the number of pallets these aircraft can carry, 
rather than the weight they carry. However--here is an important 
point--this point reinforces that C-5s actually carry twice as much as 
the C-17s, since C-5s have 36 pallet positions and C-17s have only 18.
  So can we fix the aircraft we have for less than the cost of 
replacing them with new aircraft? I believe the answer is yes.
  Let's look at this last chart, some of the benefits of the C-5. This 
is a paraphrase of the CRS report that came out a couple months ago. 
This is what the paraphrase is. It says: Current cost estimates of 
modernizing the C-5 are about one-third that of a new C-17, and the C-5 
will carry twice the payload of the C-17.
  Not my words but those of CRS.
  We can fix the aircraft, the C-5As and Bs that we have, and it is 
clearly less expensive to do that than to buy new aircraft. But can we 
afford to purchase new aircraft anyhow, even though it is unnecessary 
and exceedingly costly? In 2006, the Federal Government, our Federal 
Government, ran a deficit of just under a quarter of a trillion 
dollars. OMB tells us the deficit for 2007 this year will be around 
$200 billion. We are rapidly approaching the retirement of the baby 
boomers, which will put unprecedented strain on Social Security, on 
Medicare, and on Medicaid. In short, we are spending beyond our means, 
and we are using the Social Security surplus to mask an even larger 
operational deficit.
  The Defense Science Board tells us that:

       Each year of additional C-17 production beyond 2008 will 
     represent an additional $2.4 billion acquisition and $2 
     billion to $3 billion life cycle cost commitment.

  I would ask: Aren't there better ways we could use some of this money 
than purchasing aircraft the military has not requested, credible 
studies suggest to me--and I think to others--that we don't need?
  Even if we confine our focus on the Air Force budget, it is clear 
there are better uses for this money. The strategic airlift fleet--C-5s 
and C-17s--is the youngest of the Air Force's aircraft fleets--the 
youngest--not the oldest, the youngest. If we have several billion 
dollars lying around, I would suggest there are other fleets in the Air 
Force inventory in more urgent need of new aircraft than the strategic 
airlift fleet, including tankers, C-130s, to name a few. Yet if you ask 
the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, he will tell you this is the 
reason the Air Force is not and will probably not put money in its own 
budget to retire C-5s and replace them with new aircraft.
  When we actually sit down and do the math, it is difficult to argue 
that C-5s, with wings and fuselages that have another 30 or 40 years of 
useful life, should be retired and replaced with new C-17s. It is even 
more difficult to argue that it is cost-effective to do so.
  The only reason left to consider for why we would possibly want to 
retire C-5s and replace them with new C-17s is that the C-17s can 
perform missions that C-5s cannot.
  It is true that C-17s and C-5s have different attributes. The C-17 
can land on short, austere runways that the C-5 cannot. But it is 
important to keep in mind that only a small minority of strategic 
airlift missions involve taking off from or landing on short, austere 
runways. On the other hand, the C-5 can carry outsized cargo that the 
C-17 cannot carry.
  In fact, the evidence suggests that if we have a deficit, in terms of 
matching our capabilities with our needs, it is that we have too few 
modernized C-5s, not too few C-17s. For instance, during Operation 
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, the Department of Defense has been 
forced to lease a Russian aircraft called the An-124 to carry outsize 
and oversize cargo because C-17s cannot carry this cargo, and not 
enough C-5 aircraft have been available.
  An-124s are Russian aircraft that are comparable to the C-5s. 
Actually, they are a little bigger than C-5s. It is ironic that some 
are talking about retiring C-5s when the C-5s we have are insufficient 
to meet our needs and we must rely on an even larger Russian aircraft 
to help fill the gap.
  Mr. President, I have come to the floor on more than one occasion 
during my time in the Senate to discuss this issue. I want to be honest 
with you; sometimes we act as though our usual obligation to be careful 
stewards of the taxpayers' dollars does not apply when it comes to 
defense spending. I want to remind my colleagues of this: When we spend 
beyond our needs, there is an opportunity cost. We end up shortchanging 
our troops in the field, failing to provide them with the body armor 
and up-armored vehicles they need, or we end up shortchanging our 
troops when they come home, failing to actually tend to their physical 
and psychological needs, which is a problem and concern we hope to 
address by the

[[Page S9099]]

amendment that was discussed before me.
  Let me finish today by commending the leadership of the Armed 
Services Committee and its SeaPower Subcommittee, which has 
jurisdiction over this issue. They have shown a commitment over the 
years to identifying the facts on this issue and making decisions based 
on the facts.
  The Defense bill reported out of the Armed Services Committee--the 
bill before us today--retains the requirement in current law that we 
fully flight-test three C-5s that have been modernized before making 
any further C-5 retirement decisions. The committee also approved 
report language requiring the Air Force to provide Congress with a 
report this year, giving us an up-to-date assessment on the performance 
of these three C-5s which have undergone modernization upgrades, as 
well as the projected cost of upgrading of the rest of the C-5 fleet.
  I thank the members of the committee and the chairman and Senator 
McCain, as well as their staffs, for their work on this issue. I hope 
we pass this Defense authorization bill which is before us. I hope the 
Senate will insist on its position in this regard in the conference 
with the House.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
Senator McCaskill's remarks, Senator Collins be recognized on the 
Republican side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin and Senator 
McCain for making this amendment a priority. I also thank Chairman 
Akaka, Senator Murray, and many others who worked on this issue for a 
long time.
  I was honored to have the opportunity to be one of the first in the 
Senate to file a bill on the subject of wounded warriors after the 
Walter Reed scandal broke. It was an interesting process for me because 
I spent time at Walter Reed and, of course, I got the official tour. 
Then I sat down and talked to the soldiers there. It was in those 
conversations that I learned about some of the problems we are trying 
to address in this important amendment. Many of the things Senator 
Obama and I included in our legislation have, in fact, been included in 
this amendment. Overall, it is going to make a real difference in these 
warriors' lives and their families' lives--how they are treated within 
our health care system as they return from battle, as they return from 
their service, while they are still in the Active military.
  I won't go into the details of the amendment. Many others have spoken 
about it. Suffice it to say that, overall, it is going to make a huge 
improvement in the physical disability system and being able to 
maneuver through the system in a way that is not punitive, making that 
transition from the Active military to the veterans system much 
smoother and easier to navigate. It is going to support the families of 
these men and women. That was what struck me. Some of these family 
members who are going to Walter Reed to care for these men and women 
who have given so much for us--they were not being treated with 
consistency, not getting some of the benefits they deserved because, 
frankly, they were doing us a favor by being there and caring for their 
loved ones. We also address that.
  Certainly, we have more assistance and advocacy for outpatients. That 
was the meat of the problem at Walter Reed. It wasn't the quality of 
the medical care they were receiving; it was the way the outpatients 
were being treated, the facilities they were in, the priority they were 
being given, and were their needs being met, particularly in the area 
of substance abuse, and were they being met in the area of mental 
health care. I think this amendment will go a long way toward 
correcting the underlying problems in the system that allowed the 
scandal at Walter Reed to become the focus of the American public for 
so many weeks early in the year.
  I also, with some regret, repeat some words I have said before. The 
reason I regret having to repeat these words is because when I gave 
this speech 14 months ago, I believed at the time I gave this speech 
that there would be change after the election. I believed in my heart 
that the people in Washington would listen like they had not listened 
before. But because they have not, I think it is important to repeat 
part of the speech I gave on Harry Truman's birthday, in May of last 
year, as I talked about the war in Iraq and the reasons I thought it 
was important to make a change in the Senate.

  I grew up in rural Missouri, in the heart of a Nation that I was 
raised to love and revere. I grew up surrounded by strong men and women 
who had won a great world war, a war fought against tyranny. My father 
was a decorated veteran of that war whom I rarely recall ever hearing 
speak about combat. As I grew older, his silence spoke volumes to me, 
not only about the modesty of his generation but about what Dwight 
Eisenhower later called the ``agony of the battlefield.''
  I grew up in a family of Missouri Democrats, Roosevelt people, Truman 
people, but one of the first political speeches my father asked me to 
read was President Eisenhower's farewell address that he gave in 1961. 
Reading his speech again later in my life, I found myself deeply moved 
by his words. I respect his eloquence as he spoke of this country's 
fundamental decency and greatness. He called upon America to live up to 
its ideals by always using our greatest strength wisely in the service 
of peace and liberty. He warned us to be aware of arrogance, yet 
maintain our readiness to sacrifice.
  I was raised to believe that sacrifice in the defense of our freedom 
is an American ideal and that from our earliest days, Americans have 
willingly given of themselves in our defense and in the defense of 
others. I have always known and felt and believed that, through 
generation after generation, that willingness has made us safe.
  So as I grew up in Missouri, our country seemed on the verge of its 
greatest period, a time of joy and growth and undeniable strength; a 
time when all would finally share in our Nation's great bounty, when 
our military would be used wisely to benefit ourselves and the world; a 
time, too, when long-closed doors would finally open and we would live 
up to the ideal of America that lit all the continents with hope and 
promise and made us admired and respected across so much of the globe. 
I did not think then that an American leader would ever squander the 
trust of our people or the admiration of the world that had been won 
with such courage and at such a cost. But that is what has happened.
  In the days after 9/11, this Nation was united, as it was after Pearl 
Harbor. The world bled for us and stood at our side. Our historic 
allies offered all possible aid. New allies in Asia and the Middle East 
emerged, all agreeing to support us in a war on terror.
  But that has changed. America was misled into a different war, not 
against al-Qaida. Instead, we went to war with Iraq. Fearful of weapons 
of mass destruction, we believed they were a threat to the world. We 
had a plan to destroy the terrorists. We were strong. But there were no 
weapons of mass destruction. We did not have a plan to destroy the 
terrorists. We did not even have a plan to take care of Iraq.
  Now our strength has been compromised. The President and his 
administration have led us into a quagmire, alienated our allies, 
diminished our national morale, cost us billions of dollars, thousands 
of precious lives, and maimed many thousands more. Even our Nation's 
top military authorities have cited enormous mistakes, while this 
administration refuses to listen to them.
  Those were words of a speech I gave 14 months ago, and this 
administration still refuses to listen. I have listened. I have 
listened to Missourians. I have listened to General Petraeus. I have 
listened to the President. I have listened to the experts who have come 
in front of our Committee on Armed Services, including former generals, 
generals who have served in Iraq, and maybe most importantly, I have 
listened to brave soldiers in Iraq.
  I sat across a breakfast table and looked at a young man and said: 
But are you worried if we begin pulling out of Iraq that it will be 
chaos?
  And this young man from Missouri, from a State that I love and he 
loves, and a country that we want to protect

[[Page S9100]]

more than anything, looked at me and said: Ma'am, we are in chaos. We 
need to get out of here.
  I implore the Commander in Chief to listen to America, to listen to 
the people of this country who figured this out months ago. We are 
stuck in a situation that is squandering the lives of our bravest, and 
it is also squandering the future of our Nation because of the 
financial toll it is taking on our budget.
  It is time that we change course in Iraq. We have an opportunity to 
speak louder than any American voice can speak. We have an opportunity 
to say to the President of the United States: You must change course. 
It is time to bring our combat troops home from Iraq.
  We need to begin that process quickly, and we need to begin to 
refocus our efforts on fighting terrorism around the world, going after 
al-Qaida, making our military strong, restoring our prominence in the 
world with allies that matter, understanding that the strength of our 
Nation rests with a strong military that we must protect and not wear 
thin, and, finally, realize that America is speaking with a strong 
voice. This is a democracy. If we cannot listen to those who sent us 
here, we have failed our duty in this great Chamber.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
that is being offered by Senator Levin and Senator McCain that will add 
to this legislation the wounded warriors bill that we worked so hard on 
in the Armed Services Committee.
  I also wish to acknowledge the great leadership of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, Senator Larry Craig and Senator Daniel Akaka.
  This is an unusual case where two Senate committees worked together 
in a bipartisan way to produce legislation that will help improve the 
care of our veterans, our wounded warriors, and their families.
  All of us were outraged by the reports of substandard conditions at 
Walter Reed Hospital. But our investigation of those conditions 
revealed other problems with the system--disparities in the award of 
disability ratings, poor treatment of our soldiers and marines after 
they had left the military hospitals, a lack of a smooth transition 
into the VA medical system. These are just some of the problems that 
were uncovered. I believe this legislation contains the reforms that 
are going to make a real difference in ensuring high quality, 
consistent medical care for those who have given so much.
  I have become particularly concerned about the treatment of those who 
are suffering from traumatic brain injury. Traumatic brain injury, or 
TBI, has emerged as the signature injury of the Iraq war. Bomb blasts 
are the most common cause of injury and death in Iraq. While 
improvements in body armor and protective gear have enabled our troops 
to survive attacks that once would have proven deadly, they still do 
not fully protect against damage from blasts from roadside explosives 
or suicide bombers.
  As many as 28 percent of the 1.4 million troops who have served in 
Iraq and Afghanistan have been exposed to bomb blasts and may have 
suffered at least some form of traumatic brain injury. Mr. President, 
60 percent of the blast victims treated at Walter Reed have been 
diagnosed with mild, moderate, or severe traumatic brain injury.
  I visited one such soldier recently at Walter Reed, a 19-year-old 
soldier from Maine who is faced with making an agonizing medical 
decision while he is suffering the effects of a mild case of TBI. I 
thought: How terribly difficult it was for this brave young man to be 
faced with making a decision about whether to amputate his foot while 
his judgment is impaired by a traumatic brain injury, an injury that 
was not initially diagnosed. And that is one of the problems.
  I have worked very closely with the Senator from New York, Mrs. 
Clinton, to come up with a better system for screening soldiers for TBI 
because while the evidence of brain injury may be dramatically clear in 
some cases, in others there may be no outward or visible sign of the 
trauma. It can take days, weeks, or even months before the symptoms of 
TBI are readily apparent. As a consequence, as with this soldier, a 
mild case of TBI may go misdiagnosed or untreated, particularly if the 
servicemember has sustained more obvious injuries.
  Soldiers with TBI often have symptoms affecting several areas of 
brain function. Headaches, sleep disorders, and sensitivity to light 
and noise are common. Attention, memory, language, and problem-solving 
abilities can be affected. Some of the more troubling symptoms can be 
behavioral: mood changes, depression, anxiety, emotional symptoms. 
Moreover, sometimes the symptoms of TBI overlap with post-traumatic 
stress disorder, making it difficult to distinguish between the two.
  Sadly, failure to accurately diagnose or treat TBI can result in 
frustration, inadequate medical treatment, and a series--an endless 
series--of hardships for our returning veterans and their families.

  So I am very pleased the wounded warriors bill includes an expansion 
of research into TBI and, perhaps most important, provisions authored 
by Senator Clinton and myself that will address problems resulting from 
the misdiagnosis, or the failure to diagnose at all, cases of TBI. The 
bill will improve the screening process that our troops go through 
before deployment to improve TBI diagnoses after deployment.
  While many wounded servicemembers receive cognitive evaluations upon 
their return, if there is no baseline test conducted prior to the 
injury, it can be very difficult to assess the injury, and it can lead 
to questions about the validity of postdeployment assessment. So our 
amendment requires a baseline assessment to be done prior to the 
deployment.
  I end by saying that the idea for this predeployment assessment came 
to me from a neurologist in Maine who treated a soldier back from Iraq 
who had a traumatic brain injury that had been missed. It was severely 
interfering with his recovery. Fortunately, this neurologist was able 
to make the correct diagnosis and see that this brave soldier who had 
sacrificed so much got the care and treatment he needed.
  I believe the provisions in the wounded warriors bill, the amendment 
before us, will greatly reduce the chances of misdiagnosis in the 
future. There are many other provisions in this bill that are going to 
improve the treatment and care for those who have served their country 
so well and sacrificed so much, but I did want to highlight these 
provisions of special interest to me.
  Again, I salute the leaders of the Armed Services Committee and the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee for their dedication and hard work. All of 
us have learned so much, and each and every one of us is committed to 
ensuring the highest quality of care for those who have sacrificed so 
much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in November, voters in my State of Ohio and 
across this Nation shouted from the ballot box: The Iraq war must end. 
They demanded we refocus our efforts on securing our homeland so that 
the darkest day in our Nation's history, 
9/11, is never repeated. With Democrats in control of Congress this 
session, we immediately began to work to end the war. We set out to 
implement the full recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, 
recommendations that will go a long way toward making our country 
safer.
  By working to end the war in Iraq and passing the commission's 
recommendations, we are executing a strategy to combat terrorism. Make 
no mistake, ending the war in Iraq is a counterterrorism strategy. 
Global terrorist attacks have increased sevenfold since we invaded 
Iraq--sevenfold. Unfortunately and tragically, our continued engagement 
in Iraq is the best thing that ever happened to jihadist recruitment.
  Democrats brought to this Chamber not just one piece of legislation 
to redeploy our troops out of Iraq but many. And each time, every time, 
either Republicans defeated the measure in Congress by threatening 
filibuster or the President vetoed it in the White House--each time, 
every time.
  Two days ago, the President was in my State in Cleveland trying to 
buy more time for this war. The President has yet to define 
``victory.'' He has yet to tell us how many years it will take

[[Page S9101]]

to achieve whatever his definition of ``victory'' is. Will we be in 
Iraq for 5 more years, for 10 more years, for 15 more years? Will more 
thousands of U.S. service men and women die, tens of thousands? The 
President has yet to hold himself and his administration accountable 
for fomenting a civil war and breeding more global terrorism.
  The President is proud of his stubbornness. He should be ashamed.
  The path he is wed to has simultaneously increased the threat of 
terrorism and reduced our Nation's capacity to protect against it. 
Stubbornness is not leadership. Defensiveness is not leadership. 
Finger-pointing is not leadership. Supporting the President's strategy 
in Iraq because you support the President is not leadership. Lives are 
at stake. Our homeland security is at stake. Global stability and 
security are at stake.
  Yesterday we learned that al-Qaida is at pre-9/11 strength. That is 
frightening news, and it is cause for outrage because it did not have 
to be that way, and it does not have to be that way.
  We learned yesterday that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan 
is fostering the next generation of al-Qaida at an alarming rate. What 
kind of signal exactly does the President and his supporters think we 
send by failing to secure the region where we know al-Qaida lives and 
trains and plans, according to military analysts, with relative 
freedom--the same region that served as the breeding ground for global 
terrorism through al-Qaida before 9/11, the same region we now know 
that al-Qaida trained in for the deadliest attack on our Nation's soil, 
the same region where Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/11, is 
believed to be hiding, free to plot the next attack on our homeland.

  Over the objection of military advisers, the 9/11 Commission, and the 
voice of a nation, the President stubbornly insists upon staying the 
course with a failed policy in Iraq. Staying the course with the 
President's failed Iraq policy hasn't forced our Government to take its 
eye off the ball, it has caused us to drop it.
  Prior to World War II, the French built the Maginot Line, assuming 
this line would prevent Germany from attacking France. History proved 
the French wrong. The President's strategy in Iraq is the Maginot Line 
of the 21st century. It imperils our Nation by mistakenly focusing our 
attention in the wrong direction.
  We have dropped the ball on capturing Osama bin Laden. We have 
dropped the ball on securing Afghanistan. We have dropped the ball on 
implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Anyone who thinks 
those aren't signals al-Qaida is paying close attention to is sorely 
mistaken.
  Supporting the President's policy doesn't just fail to effectively 
target terrorism, it puts a bull's-eye squarely on our Nation. Ending 
the war in Iraq isn't just about bringing our troops home. It isn't 
just about ensuring veterans get the health care and the benefits they 
have long been denied. It isn't just about a new direction in our 
foreign policy. It is about returning our focus to where it must be if 
our Nation, our communities, and our families are to remain safe. 
Ending the war in Iraq is about reengaging in full force on the war on 
terror.
  I applaud my Republican friends who have chosen to stand up to the 
President. More and more of them have taken steps of bravery with every 
vote we bring to the floor. But it is not enough. With every lost vote, 
we add more lives to the list of the men and women lost in Iraq. With 
every lost vote, we empower al-Qaida.
  In the Senate, those of us committed to ending this war of choice and 
securing our Nation will keep fighting to end the war. I appreciate the 
leadership of Senator Webb, of Senator Hagel, Senator Reid, and Senator 
Levin, all of whom have shown courageous leadership on this crisis of a 
generation. Together, we are going to change this policy. The safety of 
every American depends on it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Idaho yield for a unanimous consent 
request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Idaho has completed his remarks, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, be recognized; after Senator Lincoln, if 
there is a Republican here, they would then come next and that, after 
that, after Senator Lincoln, Senator Kerry be the next Democrat in 
sequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I would 
not object, for the purposes of planning, I know we have a vote at 4. 
Does Senator Lincoln have an estimate as to how much time she will 
take?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Ten minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I would not object, but it 
is my understanding we are trying to go back and forth. Is there a 
Republican who is lined up at this point? If not, I think the Senator 
from Arkansas is going to speak for about 10 minutes and if I could 
proceed after her.
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes. Senator Craig is here. I know of no additional 
speakers. I think it is legitimate, since the Senator from 
Massachusetts is on the floor. I would agree that following Senator 
Craig, Senator Lincoln and then Senator Kerry proceed.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me first of all thank the chairman and 
the ranking member for bringing this legislation to the floor and for 
including in it the wounded warrior amendment. Let me also thank the 
senior Senator from Arizona for his leadership on what has been a 
critical and important issue for our country and, at best and at worst, 
very divisive. I have not seen him step back one moment from the 
defense of our men and women in uniform and the mission they are 
conducting in Iraq, and I thank Senator McCain for that kind of 
leadership. It is tremendously important for our country that we have 
that quality of leadership, knowledge, and understanding; to be able 
not only to travel there and understand but to come back to this 
country and articulate it.
  I must also say I was disappointed when the Senator from Missouri 
talked about lives squandered in Iraq. I am sorry, but every young 
Idahoan who has died in Iraq was not a life squandered. To me, that 
young man or woman was a hero in defense of their Nation, in defense of 
a nation trying to be free, and an expression from our Nation of that; 
for preserving for this generation of Americans a sense of freedom and 
independence in a very difficult world. Lives squandered? I am sorry, I 
choose other words. The difference between a life squandered and that 
of an American hero is a distinct difference.
  Today, we are here to talk about wounded warriors. We are also here 
to talk about something my chairman of the VA Committee, Danny Akaka, 
and I have brought forward in an amendment that will be considered and, 
we hope, handled by the chairman and the ranking member and our whole 
Senate in a unanimous way to deal with traumatic brain injury 
improvements and transitional benefits that I and Senator Akaka and all 
our colleagues have worked on for those who are in the active service 
and about to become veterans.

  Certainly, the Presiding Officer, now serving on the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, has openly participated with us in making sure the 
word ``seamless transition'' is not just something in our vocabulary, 
but it is a reality of moving men and women from active service into a 
veteran status; and for those who were injured and are eligible for 
benefits, to make sure that transition is, in fact, seamless.
  I would like to speak for a moment on an amendment we are offering 
that deals with that. Senator Akaka a few days ago laid out a number of 
provisions that are in this amendment and was on the floor earlier to 
speak to it, and I wish to address some of those on the floor at this 
moment but not to travel that path again.
  First, I am proud of the comprehensive nature of the language dealing 
with those suffering from traumatic brain injury in this amendment. 
Enactment of these provisions will ensure that injured servicemembers, 
veterans, and their families will receive a detailed plan from a VA 
treatment team

[[Page S9102]]

outlining their care and a rehabilitation program. They can be certain 
the plan will be reviewed and updated often, even at their request.
  They will benefit from new investments in research into mild, 
moderate, and serious traumatic brain injury. Most important to me, 
they will have the comfort of knowing the Secretary can provide TBI 
care in a private, non-VA facility anytime the Secretary determines 
that doing so would be optimal to the recovery and rehabilitation of a 
patient.
  Through time and hearings, we have discovered in the VA Committee 
that while the Veterans' Administration and their health care delivery 
systems are, by the nature of what they do, the best in the country, 
with some of the cutting-edge technology that is available in the 
private sector, we are not yet up to speed in the VA public sector. So 
giving the Secretary this flexibility and option says to our veteran, 
who may well be suffering from TBI: You are going to get the best that 
is available, private or public, at the time you need it. That is the 
way it ought to be.
  In other words, whenever it is in the best interest of the patient's 
recovery, then the VA can purchase private care until that care may be 
available within the system itself.
  These are a few of the very important provisions in this amendment 
that I believe will make the care and treatment of our wounded 
servicemembers and veterans even better.
  I would also like to point out our actions with this amendment 
reflect a pledge we made a few months ago when the Veterans' Committee 
and the Armed Services Committee held a joint hearing to receive 
testimony on needed changes to the transition programs of health care 
benefits. At that time, many of us stated our intention to make a good-
faith effort to work on these issues under our respective committees' 
jurisdictions and to merge them back together again at the earliest 
possible opportunity. Senator Akaka and Senator Levin certainly were 
good to their word as we worked to bring those together, and that is 
exactly what is reflected in these amendments that are currently before 
the Senate and will be when we bring the other amendment forward. So I 
am very proud to tell the Senate that both committees have done their 
work and lived up to their bargain.
  I wish to compliment the Senators from Michigan and Arizona, as I did 
earlier, for the work they have done on the Armed Services Committee in 
producing the wounded warrior bill that is now pending to this 
authorization bill as amendment No. 2019. That bill, coupled with the 
amendment Senator Akaka and I are now offering, will provide a 
comprehensive approach to improving the benefits and services of those 
who are severely injured in service and those who need transitional 
assistance.
  Finally, I also think this amendment is very important because it 
demonstrates Congress can break down the walls of jurisdiction and 
territory and do the right thing at the right time for the right 
people. In this case, it is America's brave young men and women who are 
standing in harm's way, and as a result of their bravery and their 
heroism may sustain some level of injury.
  I and other Senators have been very critical of the bureaucratic 
roadblocks we oftentimes see in DOD or the VA. But I must tell you we 
see a merging now and a breaking down of those barriers and roadblocks 
that ought to be done when we find those difficulties arising. So I 
believe that if we are going to demand these two agencies break down 
their walls of territory and jurisdiction, then we can demonstrate the 
same. These amendments recognize and demonstrate that. I am proud we 
are doing so today.
  I wish to thank, again, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for 
their support throughout the process, and I wish to thank Chairman 
Akaka for his leadership. I also wish to compliment the staff of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee--Gary Leeling, Dick Walsh, and Diana 
Tabler--for working in a collegial way with our staffs on the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee to make all of this effort very possible in the way 
that it is being presented on the floor.
  Mr. President, to my colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member, 
I appreciate the opportunity to come speak on these critical issues, 
and once again the cooperation between the VA Committee and their 
staffs, and the Armed Services Committee and their staffs, I think, is 
a model of how we get things done in the appropriate way and in the 
timely way necessary.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Craig for all 
the work he and his committee put in on this bill. I know he and 
Senator Akaka and members of that committee have played a major role. 
Their amendment reflects additional work, and we are very grateful. I 
know every veteran in this country and their families are grateful.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain and I, at 
this time, be allowed to offer six second-degree amendments which have 
been cleared--they shouldn't take more than a few minutes--prior to 
Senator Lincoln being recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2131 to Amendment No. 2019

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Durbin and 
McCain, I call up amendment No. 2131, a second-degree amendment to our 
amendment. It requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
comprehensive plan for the provision to members of the Armed Forces 
with traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder. The 
amendment has been cleared, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2131 to amendment No. 2019.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
  comprehensive plan for the provision to members of the Armed Forces 
   with traumatic brain injury or post-Traumatic stress disorder the 
            services that best meet their individual needs)

       At the end of section 1631(b), add the following:
       (16) A program under which each member of the Armed Forces 
     who incurs a traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress 
     disorder during service in the Armed Forces--
       (A) is enrolled in the program; and
       (B) receives, under the program, treatment and 
     rehabilitation meeting a standard of care such that each 
     individual who is a member of the Armed Forces who qualifies 
     for care under the program shall--
       (i) be provided the highest quality of care possible based 
     on the medical judgment of qualified medical professionals in 
     facilities that most appropriately meet the specific needs of 
     the individual; and
       (ii) be rehabilitated to the fullest extent possible using 
     the most up-to-date medical technology, medical 
     rehabilitation practices, and medical expertise available.
       (17) A requirement that if a member of the Armed Forces 
     participating in a program established in accordance with 
     paragraph (16) believes that care provided to such 
     participant does not meet the standard of care specified in 
     subparagraph (B) of such paragraph, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall, upon request of the participant, provide to such 
     participant a referral to another Department of Defense or 
     Department of Veterans Affairs provider of medical or 
     rehabilitative care for a second opinion regarding the care 
     that would meet the standard of care specified in such 
     subparagraph.
       (18) The provision of information by the Secretary of 
     Defense to members of the Armed Forces with traumatic brain 
     injury or post-traumatic stress disorder and their families 
     about their rights with respect to the following:
       (A) The receipt of medical and mental health care from the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (B) The options available to such members for treatment of 
     traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.
       (C) The options available to such members for 
     rehabilitation.
       (D) The options available to such members for a referral to 
     a public or private provider of medical or rehabilitative 
     care.
       (E) The right to administrative review of any decision with 
     respect to the provision of care by the Department of Defense 
     for such members.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2131.
  The amendment (No. 2131) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S9103]]

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

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham, I call up 
amendment No. 2154, an amendment which improves the distribution of 
benefits under Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Graham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2154, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 2011.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. TRAUMATIC SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE.

       (a) Designation of Fiduciary for Members With Lost Mental 
     Capacity or Extended Loss of Consciousness.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs, develop a form for the designation of a recipient 
     for the funds distributed under section 1980A of title 38, 
     United States Code, as the fiduciary of a member of the Armed 
     Forces in cases where the member is medically incapacitated 
     (as determined by the Secretary of Defense in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) or experiencing an 
     extended loss of consciousness.
       (b) Elements.--The form under subsection (a) shall require 
     that a member may elect that--
       (1) an individual designated by the member be the recipient 
     as the fiduciary of the member; or
       (2) a court of proper jurisdiction determine the recipient 
     as the fiduciary of the member for purposes of this 
     subsection.
       (c) Completion and Update.--The form under subsection (a) 
     shall be completed by an individual at the time of entry into 
     the Armed Forces and updated periodically thereafter.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment, as modified, has been 
cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2154, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2154), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2115 to Amendment No. 2019

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Craig, Akaka, 
and McCain, I call up amendment No. 2115. It is a second-degree 
amendment to the wounded warrior amendment that requires the Secretary 
of Defense to ensure that the Center of Excellence in Prevention, 
Diagnosis, Mitigation, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Post-Traumatic 
Stress Disorder collaborates to the maximum extent possible with the 
National Center for PTSD and the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
other appropriate entities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Craig, for 
     himself and Mr. Akaka, proposes an amendment numbered 2115 to 
     amendment No. 2019.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Center 
  of Excellence in Prevention, Diagnosis, Mitigation, Treatment, and 
 Rehabilitation of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder collaborates to the 
maximum extent practicable with the National Center for Post-Traumatic 
Stress Disorder of the Department of Veterans Affairs, institutions of 
  higher education, and other appropriate public and private entities)

       On page 47, strike lines 15 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) Partnerships.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     Center collaborates to the maximum extent practicable with 
     the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2115) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2114 to Amendment No. 2019

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Craig, 
Akaka, and McCain, I call up amendment No. 2114, which is a second-
degree amendment to the pending amendment that requires the Secretary 
of Defense to ensure that the Center of Excellence in Prevention, 
Diagnosis, Mitigation, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Traumatic Brain 
Injury collaborates to the maximum extent possible with the Department 
of Veterans Affairs and other appropriate entities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Craig, for 
     himself and Mr. Akaka, proposes an amendment numbered 2114 to 
     amendment No. 2019.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Center 
  of Excellence in Prevention, Diagnosis, Mitigation, Treatment, and 
 Rehabilitation of Traumatic Brain Injury collaborates to the maximum 
      extent practicable with the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
  institutions of higher education, and other appropriate public and 
                           private entities)

       On page 43, strike lines 8 through 11 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) Partnerships.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     Center collaborates to the maximum extent practicable with 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs, institu-

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2114) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2089 to Amendment No. 2019

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, myself, and 
Senator McCain, I call up amendment No. 2089, a second-degree amendment 
to our pending amendment. This relates to the Center of Excellence for 
PTSD.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Lieberman, 
     for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2089 to amendment No. 2019.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the development of a program on comprehensive pain 
 management in the Center of Excellence in the Prevention, Diagnosis, 
  Mitigation, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Post-Traumatic Stress 
                               Disorder)

       On page 50, strike lines 11 and 12 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(13) To develop a program on comprehensive pain 
     management, including management of acute and chronic pain, 
     to utilize current and develop new treatments for pain, and 
     to identify and disseminate best practices on pain 
     management.
       ``(14) Such other responsibilities as the Secretary shall 
     specify.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2089) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2090 to Amendment No. 2019

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Lieberman, McCain, 
and myself, I call up amendment No. 2090, a second-degree amendment to 
our pending amendment regarding the Center of Excellence for Traumatic 
Brain Injury.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Lieberman, 
     for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2090 to amendment No. 2019.

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

[[Page S9104]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the development of a program on comprehensive pain 
 management in the Center of Excellence in the Prevention, Diagnosis, 
  Mitigation, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Traumatic Brain Injury)

       On page 46, strike lines 17 and 18 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(14) To develop a program on comprehensive pain 
     management, including management of acute and chronic pain, 
     to utilize current and develop new treatments for pain, and 
     to identify and disseminate best practices on pain 
     management.
       ``(15) Such other responsibilities as the Secretary shall 
     specify.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2090) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2162 to Amendment No. 2019

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Snowe and myself, I 
call up amendment No. 2162, a second-degree to the pending amendment. 
It requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on reductions 
in disability ratings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Ms. Snowe, for 
     herself and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 2162 to 
     amendment No. 2019.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit upon appeal a reduction in disability rating once 
such rating has been assigned by an informal physical evaluation board 
                     of the Department of Defense)

       On page 23, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (3) Report on reduction in disability ratings by the 
     Department of Defense.
       The Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives on the numbers of instances in which a 
     disability rating assigned to a member of the Armed Forces by 
     an informal physical evaluation board of the Department of 
     Defense was reduced upon appeal, and the reasons for such 
     reduction. Such report shall cover the period beginning 
     October 7, 2001 and ending September 30, 2006, and shall be 
     submitted to the appropriate Committees of Congress by 
     February 1, 2008.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2162) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe we have done amendment No. 2154. I thank the 
Chair and thank our good friends from Arkansas and Massachusetts for 
their understanding and, of course, my good friend from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I have a special thanks to the 
chairman and ranking member for their leadership on such a critical 
issue at such a critical time in our Nation. Their leadership and their 
ability to work together have certainly brought us together here on 
this issue and many others. I am grateful to them for that.
  I rise today on behalf of the brave men and women of our National 
Guard and Reserve who have sacrificed so greatly for our freedom. They 
are the policemen and the doctors, the schoolteachers and mayors in 
communities all across our great land. They are also the beloved sons 
and daughters, fathers and mothers and families in our neighborhoods, 
in mine and yours, all across this Nation. Our Nation has turned to 
them in unprecedented numbers to help defend our freedoms around the 
world. With pride and courage, they have answered their Nation's call. 
We have seen also in their call to duty the great contribution they 
give in our communities because, as they are deployed, we see in our 
communities where perhaps our mayors or our school principals or our 
fire chiefs have to be replaced temporarily as they are gone.
  Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, nearly 600,000 of 
these citizen soldiers, including several thousand from my home State 
of Arkansas, have been activated to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. More 
than 132,000 have pulled multiple tours of duty. In doing so, they have 
served and continue to serve with distinction in some of the worst 
conditions imaginable. It is time, now, for us as a nation and as a 
body here in the Senate to begin providing them with benefits that are 
more commensurate with their increased sacrifice.
  One area in particular is the educational benefits provided under the 
Montgomery GI bill. These benefits were signed into law in 1984, a time 
when members of the Selected Reserve were seldom mobilized. 
Consequently, standard Montgomery GI benefits reflected that reality. 
But, unfortunately, it is not the same reality we see today. That is 
why I have offered two amendments to the 2008 Defense Authorization 
Act. These two amendments are a part of a bill that I have helped work 
with my colleague from Arkansas, Congressman Snyder, to put together in 
the Total Force GI bill that we have introduced on behalf of our Guard 
and Reserve. These two proposals offer two very big steps toward 
modernizing the Montgomery GI benefit to better reflect the increased 
commitment our Guard and Reserve are making to protect our Nation.
  I am extremely proud to be joined by 13 of my colleagues, including 
the Presiding Officer, from both sides of the aisle and over 40 
military veterans and higher education groups, working together as the 
partnership for veterans education. So many of us all well know how 
critically valuable education is to each and every one of us, to our 
families, to the success of our economics and our country, and we want 
to see a part of that a possibility for our veterans.
  The first amendment, which is amendment No. 2072, would place both 
Selected Reserve Montgomery GI programs under the same umbrella in law 
as the Active-Duty program. Under the current structure, Active-Duty 
benefits have continued to increase in recent years, while the benefits 
for our hard-working reservists have remained untouched. As a result, 
the value of the Montgomery GI benefits has plummeted for members of 
the Selected Reserve, despite their increased service, from 47 percent 
of Active-Duty benefits in 1985 to now only 29 percent of those 
benefits today. This amendment would establish one program with one set 
of rules that would cut inconsistent and inequitable structuring of 
benefits by ensuring that all future benefits are upgraded equitably 
and are easier to administer.
  An identical provision has been included in the House-passed version 
of the Defense authorization bill. My hope is that my colleagues will 
join me in including this amendment in our Defense authorization bill 
to truly reflect not only our gratitude but certainly, without a doubt, 
what our guardsmen and reservists deserve after the incredible and 
courageous commitment they have made to this country.
  The second amendment is amendment No. 2074, and it is identical to an 
amendment that was passed unanimously by the Senate last year. This 
amendment would allow operational reservists to have portability of 
their Reserve Education Assistance Program--it is called their REAP 
benefit--for up to 10 years upon their separation from service.
  In establishing REAP, which is their Reserve Education Assistance 
Program, Congress took steps to enhance educational benefits for 
activated members of the Selected Reserve, but we failed to address 
their lack of readjustment or transition components. As a result, 
Active-Duty servicemembers have up to 10 years after their separation 
of service to utilize their Montgomery GI benefit, while operational 
reservists, whom they are often fighting alongside, without a doubt, 
must forfeit all of the educational benefits they have earned once they 
separate from the Selected Reserve.
  That is incredible. We have guardsmen and reservists who are serving 
alongside Active-Duty military. They are seeing the same dangers, the 
same

[[Page S9105]]

challenges, the same pain, the same separation from family, for 
relatively the same amount of time. Yet when they come home and they 
leave the Guard, they no longer have access to those educational 
opportunities. How unfair. How important it is right now for us, as 
these returning veterans have an opportunity to begin to transition 
themselves back into their communities, back into their existing jobs 
or new jobs--the need for education is paramount, and making sure we 
make it available for them is absolutely essential.
  To this day, the Montgomery GI benefits continue to be the only 
benefits that those who have served Selected Reserve activated duty in 
the war on terror may not access when they eventually separate or 
retire. In addition, members of today's Selected Reserve are so busy 
training and deploying that they have little time to actually use their 
educational benefits; therefore, their ability to use their benefits 
while serving is curtailed because of repeated deployment and denied 
entirely once they finish their service. We are talking about 
education. We are talking about empowerment. We are talking about 
something they deserve, they have earned, and we should be making sure 
we make available to them.
  I would like to give an example. Take, for instance, Jamaal Lampkin, 
who is a 28-year-old native of Malvern, AR, whose story was recently 
reported in USA Today. Jamaal spent 13 months with the U.S. Army 
Reserve in Iraq. After his distinguished tour of duty, which included a 
Purple Heart, he did not have time to utilize the enhanced educational 
benefits he had earned prior to the conclusion of his service 
obligation. To do so, he had to reenlist and risk the chance of being 
redeployed at some point. How unbelievable, for someone who had given 
of himself and offered himself in service to this great Nation to come 
back and find that after that tour of duty, those benefits were gone.
  In his records, here in this article, he said:

       I had the proud opportunity to serve my country in Iraq and 
     I just wanted to move on.
  He, and those like him, certainly deserve as much. We must act on 
behalf of these brave Americans because they deserve a policy more 
reflective of their sacrifice. Jamal fought and was wounded alongside 
active-duty servicemembers, but because of an inequity of the law, he 
is denied the same opportunity to utilize those educational benefits he 
has rightly earned, benefits that serve as a primary means of helping 
our service men and women make that difficult transition back into 
civilian life after serving in combat.
  Some have raised concerns this amendment would have an effect on 
retention because it would provide a postservice portability of 
benefits. I wholeheartedly disagree. There are many valid personal and 
family reasons that influence a volunteer's decision to serve. Military 
analysts have consistently noted that reenlistment bonuses and lump sum 
cash payments have been effective in meeting and exceeding reenlistment 
goals in the Active and Reserve forces, not the educational benefits 
that are deferred over time.
  That is why we have seen an unprecedented increase in the amount 
spent on these bonuses in recent years. At a time when one branch of 
our military is spending over $1 billion in cash bonuses, the least we 
can do is provide a fraction of those costs on investing in our citizen 
soldiers. After all, doing so only serves to enhance our Nation's 
competitiveness through the development of a more highly educated and 
productive workforce.
  Young high school graduates in Arkansas and across this great country 
thinking about furthering their education and whether to join the 
National Guard or Reserves should know they will earn Montgomery GI 
benefits by enlisting, and even more if they are called up to duty.
  When it is time to reenlist, they can keep all earned educational 
benefits with the opportunity to earn more by staying in or they can 
take with them in civilian life the benefits they have earned when they 
were called up to defend our great Nation.
  As the daughter of a Korean war veteran, I was taught from an early 
age about the sacrifices of our troops and the sacrifices our troops 
have to make to keep our Nation free. I have been grateful for the 
service of so many of our brave men and women from the State of 
Arkansas and across this Nation. On behalf of them and their families, 
I will continue to fight to ensure they are provided with the benefits, 
the pay, and the health care they have earned.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record letters of endorsement from the Military Officers Association of 
America, the National Reserve Association, the American Legion, the Air 
Force Sergeants of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the 
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Air Force Sergeants


                                                  Association,

                                   Temple Hills, MD, July 9, 2007.
     Hon. Blanche Lambert Lincoln,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lincoln: On behalf of our 130,000 AFSA 
     members, I want to express our staunch support of the two 
     amendments you are proposing regarding total force 
     educational assistance enhancement. In recent years our 
     military operations tempo requirements have been shared by 
     members of the active duty, guard and reserve forces. Guard 
     and Reserve forces now train and deploy alongside our active 
     forces seven days a week, 365 days a year; therefore, 
     opportunities for their use of educational benefits are 
     diminished. These two amendments afford our total force a 
     better balance of educational opportunities.
       The first amendment will provide operational reservists 
     with 10-year portability of educational benefits, thus 
     mirroring those of our active duty force. Unlike current 
     restrictive guidelines, this amendment will allow them to use 
     the benefits they have earned after leaving tours of active 
     duty. The second amendment will integrate the reserve MGIB 
     programs into Title 38. This will allow for single source 
     oversight of a more balanced approach to total force 
     educational benefits. Both amendments will serve to enhance 
     educational opportunities for AFSA's growing number of guard 
     and reserve members.
       Senator Lincoln, thank you for your continued focus on 
     total force educational benefits. We stand ready to support 
     you in this endeavor and others of mutual concern to our 
     members should the need arise. Please feel free to contact 
     me, or my Deputy Director of Military and Government 
     Relations, Ruth Ewalt.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Richard M. Dean,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 2007.
     Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lincoln: On behalf of the 2.7 million members 
     of The American Legion, I am writing to strongly endorse the 
     amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 
     1547) that you propose to introduce to provide an extension 
     of the delimiting date for the use of Montgomery GI Bill 
     benefits for those members of the Reserve components who have 
     been called to active duty and to recodify Title 10 Chapters 
     1606 and 1607 to Title 38.
       The American Legion supports passage of major enhancements 
     to the current All-Volunteer Force Education Assistance 
     Program, better known as the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). This 
     amendment would extend the delimiting date of the Reserve 
     Educational Assistance Program (REAP) to ten years after 
     separation from the Selected Reserve and Ready Reserve. 
     Furthermore, this amendment would recodify Title 10 Chapters 
     1606 and 1607 (MGIB-SR and REAP) to Title 38 and thereby 
     place these two programs under the same authority as the 
     active duty MGIB, but leaving kickers under Title 10. We note 
     that the current make-up of the operational military force 
     requires that adjustments be made to support all Armed Forces 
     members.
       As the distinctions between the Active and Reserve Forces 
     continue to fade, the difference between the Active and 
     Reserve Forces of the MGIB should disappear accordingly. 
     Benefits should remain commensurate with sacrifice and 
     service. Today, approximately 40 percent of troops in Iraq 
     are National Guard personnel or Reservists. Many members of 
     the Reserve components would not be eligible to receive 
     benefits while they are members of the Reserve components due 
     to frequent mobilizations and other factors, yet they have 
     honorably served their country in the Armed Forces. By 
     extending the delimiting date to ten years after completion 
     of service, Reservists will have an additional opportunity to 
     use their MGIB benefits. Additionally, by enacting this 
     legislation, future MGIB rates of the Reserve components 
     would increase lock-step with the active duty rates and 
     eliminate any inconsistencies.
       The American Legion feels that all veterans should be 
     treated equally regardless of

[[Page S9106]]

     their Reserve National Guard status. An individual who was 
     called to duty and served honorably should not have to remain 
     in the Selected Reserve to use their earned benefits. We 
     support legislation that would allow all Reservists and 
     National Guard members to use their education benefits after 
     separation regardless of disability status and if their 
     enlistment contract expires.
       In closing, The American Legion strongly endorses your 
     proposed amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act 
     and thanks you for your continuing support of America's 
     veterans and their families.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James E. Koutz,
     National Economic Commission.
                                  ____

         Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United 
           States,
                                    Alexandria, VA, July 10, 2007.
     Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the 
     United States (EANGUS) is the only military service 
     association that represents the interests of every enlisted 
     soldier and airman in the Army and Air National Guard. With a 
     constituency base of over 414,000 soldiers and airmen, their 
     families, and a large retiree membership, EANGUS engages 
     Capitol Hill on behalf of courageous Guard persons across 
     this nation.
       On behalf of EANGUS, I'd like to offer our letter of 
     support for your amendment to H.R. 1585, the ''National 
     Defense Authorization Act of 2008.'' Your amendment would 
     move Chapter 1606 and Chapter 1607 benefits from Title 10 to 
     Title 38. The amendment is cost neutral, corrects an 
     actuarial budgeting issue in the original language, but keeps 
     educational kickers with DOD under Title 10.
       With the active component Montgomery GI Bill under Title 38 
     and the Selected Reserve program under Title 10, there are 
     inconsistencies and inequities in the benefits for the same 
     level of sacrifice by the service member. This would 
     establish one program with one set of rules under one 
     committee which can do nothing but better the educational 
     future of our service members.
       Thank you for your continued support of our military and 
     veterans. If our association can be of further help, feel 
     free to contact our Legislative Director, SGM (Ret) Frank 
     Yoakum.
       Working for America's Best!
                                                 Michael P. Cline,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

         Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United 
           States,
                                    Alexandria, VA, July 10, 2007.
     Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the 
     United States (EANGUS) is the only military service 
     association that represents the interests of every enlisted 
     soldier and airman in the Army and Air National Guard. With a 
     constituency base of over 414,000 soldiers and airmen, their 
     families, and a large retiree membership, EANGUS engages 
     Capitol Hill on behalf of courageous Guard persons across 
     this nation.
       On behalf of EANGUS, I'd like to offer our letter of 
     support for your amendment to H.R. 1585, the ``National 
     Defense Authorization Act of 2008.'' Your amendment would 
     allow members of the Selected Reserve who are activated for 
     90 days or more or have already earned their Chapter 1607 
     Montgomery GI Bill benefits to have portability of their 1607 
     benefits upon the conclusion of their service, for up to 10 
     years from their last date of service. This provision would 
     apply only to their 1607 benefits (those benefits earned 
     through activated service) and not their 1606 benefits (their 
     standard Selected Reserve educational benefits).
       A very small segment of our nation's population has 
     volunteered to defend the remainder of America during this 
     long war. National Guard and Reservists called to active duty 
     to defend the nation in the War on Terrorism are the only 
     group of veterans who have no access to their MGIB benefits 
     after completing their service commitment. It sends a signal 
     that their service and sacrifice are not valued. As our 
     nation's defenders, they deserve the same readjustment 
     benefit as all other service men and women.
       Thank you for your continued support of our military and 
     veterans. If our association can be of further help, feel 
     free to contact our Legislative Director, SGM (Ret) Frank 
     Yoakum.
       Working for America's Best!
                                                 Michael P. Cline,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                 Military Officers


                                       Association of America,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 10, 2007.
     Senator Blanche Lincoln,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lincoln: On behalf of the nearly 362,000 
     members of the Military Officers Association of America 
     (MOAA), I am writing to thank you for your untiring support 
     of our military men and women and in particular for your 
     efforts to establish a ``total force'' GI Bill that matches 
     educational benefits to service and sacrifice.
       MOAA strongly supports your intention to sponsor floor 
     amendments to the Senate version of the national defense 
     authorization act that would forge a Montgomery GI Bill 
     (MGIB) that better supports armed forces recruitment and 
     helps our veterans including returning Guard and Reserve 
     warriors to realize their full potential as citizens and 
     soldiers.
       Earlier this year, the House favorably endorsed a provision 
     in its defense bill that authorizes the transfer of reserve 
     educational benefits programs from the Armed Forces code to 
     Title 38, the laws governing veterans' benefits. We applaud 
     this action as an essential first step in MGIB reform and 
     respectfully recommend that you and Senate colleagues co-
     sponsor identical language as an Amendment to the Senate 
     defense authorization.
       In addition, MOAA thanks you for your work last year in 
     pressing for a 10-year readjustment benefit for mobilized 
     reservists who earn MGIB entitlement under Chapter 1607 of 10 
     U.S. Code. We recommend that you again sponsor this critical 
     equity provision.
       Guard and Reserve servicemembers called to active duty to 
     defend the nation in the War on Terror are the only group of 
     veterans who have no access to their MGIB benefits after 
     completing their service commitment. That's not only unfair, 
     but it sends a signal that their service and sacrifice are 
     not valued.
       A fraction of our population--about 1%--is defending the 
     rest of the nation during this long, difficult and complex 
     war. We, the protected, must do all we can to ensure our 
     National Guard and Reserve warriors realize their full 
     potential as soldiers and citizens during and after their 
     service.
       MOAA and our colleagues in The Partnership for Veterans' 
     Educational thank you most sincerely for your leadership in 
     sponsoring amendments that honor the service and sacrifice of 
     our Guard and Reserve warrior-citizens.
           Sincerely,
                                             Norbert R. Ryan, Jr.,
     President.
                                  ____

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2007.
     Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lincoln: On behalf of the 2.4 million members 
     of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our 
     Auxiliaries, I would like to offer our support for your 
     Amendment providing operational reservists with a 10-year 
     portability of their Chapter 1607 (REAP) MGIB benefits.
       Currently, active duty service members have up to ten years 
     after their separation of service to utilize their MGIB 
     benefits, while operational reservists must forfeit ALL of 
     the educational benefits they earned on active duty once they 
     separate. This benefit continues to be the only one that 
     those who have served Selected Reserve activated duty in the 
     War on Terrorism may not access when they eventually 
     separate. Also, members of today's Selected Reserve are so 
     busy training and deploying that they have little time to 
     actually use their MGIB benefits. Their ability to use the 
     benefit while serving is curtailed because of repealed 
     deployments and denied entirely once they finish their 
     service. This amendment would remedy this problem facing 
     Guard and Reserve members.
       The original GI Bill helped to create the middle class 
     through easing the transition from active duty to civilian 
     life, improving access to education and creating an 
     unprecedented number of opportunities for millions of 
     Americans. The GI Bill is a central transition tool aiding 
     generations of Americans to reconnect and improve their 
     families' lives.
       Thank you for introducing this amendment and we look 
     forward to working with you and your staff on this important 
     legislation. Your stalwart support for America's veterans, 
     and all who stand in defense of our nation, is appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dennis Cullinan,
     National Legislative Service.
                                  ____



                                    Naval Reserve Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 10, 2007.
     Senator Blanche Lincoln,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lincoln: On behalf of the Naval Reserve 
     Association, and 76,000 current members of the Navy Reserve, 
     I am writing to thank you for your untiring support of our 
     military men and women and in particular for your efforts to 
     establish a ``total force'' GI Bill that matches educational 
     benefits to service and sacrifice.
       NRA strongly supports your intention to sponsor floor 
     amendments to the Senate version of the national defense 
     authorization act that would forge a Montgomery GI Bill 
     (MGIB) that better supports armed forces recruitment and 
     helps our veterans including returning Guard and Reserve 
     warriors to realize their full potential as citizens and 
     soldiers.
       The House favorably endorsed a provision in its defense 
     bill that authorizes the transfer of reserve educational 
     benefits programs from the Armed Forces code to Title 38, the 
     laws governing veterans' benefits. We applaud this action as 
     an essential first step in MGIB reform and respectfully 
     recommend that you and Senate colleagues co-sponsor identical 
     language as an Amendment to the Senate defense authorization.
       In addition, NRA thanks you for your work last year in 
     pressing for a 10-year readjustment benefit for mobilized 
     reservists who

[[Page S9107]]

     earn MGIB entitlement under Chapter 1607 of 10 U.S. Code. We 
     recommend that you again sponsor this critical equity 
     provision.
       Guard and Reserve servicemembers called to active duty to 
     defend the nation in the War on Terror are the only group of 
     veterans who have no access to their MGIB benefits after 
     completing their service commitment. That's not only unfair, 
     but it sends a signal that their service and sacrifice are 
     not valued. Since 9-11, over 585,000 Guard and Reserve 
     members have been called to serve during this critical time.
       A fraction of our population--about 1%--is defending the 
     rest of the nation during this long, difficult and complex 
     war. We must do all we can to ensure our National Guard and 
     Reserve warriors realize their full potential as citizens 
     during and after their service as Sailors, Airmen, Marines, 
     Soldiers, and Guardsmen.
       NRA and our colleagues in The Partnership for Veterans' 
     Education, and the TMC thank you most sincerely for your 
     leadership in sponsoring amendments that honor the service 
     and sacrifice of our Guard and Reserve warrior-citizens.
           Sincerely,

                                            C. Williams Coane,

                                              RADM, USN (retired),
                                               Executive Director.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Again, I urge my colleagues--I strongly urge my 
colleagues--to support these amendments. These are the right things to 
do on behalf of these unbelievable individuals, these unbelievable 
Americans, these citizen soldiers who leave their homes and their jobs. 
They leave their communities and their families to go in the bravest of 
manners to defend this great country, to defend our freedom. It is the 
least we can do for those we owe so much and to reassure future 
generations that a grateful nation will not forget them when their 
military service is complete. And, more importantly, that we will 
partner with them to reach the ultimate in their potential, the 
ultimate in their desire to make themselves the best they can be when 
they return home.
  I encourage any colleagues to support both of our amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2019

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise today to speak to the Levin-Reid-
Kerry et. al amendment with respect to Iraq. Today the President made a 
partial report on Iraq. And while it is true there has been some 
tactical military success, no amount of spinning, no amount of focus on 
the military component can obscure the bottom line reality in Iraq 
today.
  That reality is clear. There has been no meaningful political 
progress. In the long run, that is the only progress that matters, that 
makes a difference to our policy because it is the politics that is 
producing the killing and the chaos in Iraq.
  Unless and until Iraqis resolve their fundamental political 
differences, any security gains will be temporary at best, particularly 
given the numbers of troops that are committed to that security, and 
given the difficulties that we already understand in terms of 
deployment schedules.
  That is a fundamental underlying reality that colleagues in the 
Senate need to focus on. Any tactical gain in the short term, whether 
it is in Anbar Province, Diyala, or elsewhere, is welcome now, but the 
fact is, it is fundamentally temporary absent the political resolution 
that is critical to ultimately ending the violence.
  So moving the goalposts, dressing up the failure to meet strict 
benchmarks as progress, those are, frankly, rationalizations for 
failure over the long term. They are not plans for success. It is hard 
when you measure the absence of political progress over the course of 
the last months against these temporary tactical gains. It is very 
difficult to suggest that we are doing anything except sort of 
committing American forces, troops, to a kind of holding action for 
hope, hope that there is some turn and some kind of outcome.
  I think most of us would rather have the U.S. military committed to 
what we all consider to be a winning strategy, not a hopeful strategy. 
Meanwhile, in the middle of the President's report, partial report 
today, another, frankly, more chilling and important report tells us 
that while we have been bogged down and distracted in Iraq, al-Qaida, 
which the President keeps referring to as the central enemy, al-Qaida 
has found a safe heaven in Pakistan. Al-Qaida has rebuilt its 
organization.
  Today, top intelligence officials tell the United States that al-
Qaida is better positioned to strike the West than they have been at 
any time since 9/11. I think any American hearing this, after these 
several thousand lives have been sacrificed in Iraq, to hear that al-
Qaida, which is the principal focus of the war on terrorism, is 
stronger today after all of these billions of dollars and lives lost in 
Iraq, is a stunning turn of events, shocking turn of events, one that 
ought to stop everyone in the Senate to collectively turn our policy to 
where it ought to be, which is the focus on al-Qaida and not the focus 
in Iraq.
  In fact, what has happened in Anbar Province proves that al-Qaida can 
become more of a minimalist kind of threat in Iraq itself when measured 
against the threat of the political killing that is taking place 
between Sunni and Shia, Shia and Sunni.
  Our principal focus, notwithstanding this report from our own 
intelligence agencies, is where? It is on Iraq. Not principally where 
it ought to be, in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. Iraq is not just 
a distraction from the fight against terrorists, it is, frankly, al-
Qaida's best fundraising tool. It is al-Qaida's best organizational 
magnet. You did not have to wait until September in order to understand 
what is happening today and what will continue to happen in the absence 
of any measure of political progress.
  So what we need is not a step away by the Senate, not some sort of 
delaying tactic to wait for the magic of hope to produce itself in 
September, what we need is the hard work of the Senate to produce a 
policy for change now. Two days ago I heard some of my colleagues come 
to the floor and question why we are having this debate now when the 
White House is going to report on the escalation in September?
  I heard the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, say: This is not the 
time to alter the policy we established about 2 months ago.
  I heard Senator Kyl from Arizona say: We need to wait for the report 
in September before making judgments about what to do next.
  I heard the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, ask--and these 
are his words: Why do we have to keep taking up the Iraq issue when we 
know full well in September there will be a major debate on this issue?
  Well, I have respect for all of the opinions of all colleagues in the 
Senate. I particularly have respect and know how much my friend, my 
colleague from Arizona, cares about American troops and understands the 
price of war. But I think that is the wrong question. Those are the 
wrong questions.

  The American people understand why we ought to debate this issue now. 
The answer is very simple, and it is very compelling. It is because 
American soldiers are dying now, and because the escalation, the 
purpose of the escalation--which was to provide cover for the Iraqi 
politicians to make compromises--can be judged a failure now.
  When a policy is not working, you do not wait for an artificial 
timeline to fix it; you fix it now. The very same voices who have come 
to the floor for years condemning artificial deadlines now want to wait 
for more Americans to die and more Iraqis to kill each other, until the 
artificial deadline of September, regardless of what the facts tell us 
today.
  I believe they want to do it so President Bush can deliver his 
report, even though we know today what the heart of that report will 
be. In fact, the President delivered a partial report today. I think 
most people understand, because it is obvious, that the facts are 
beginning to accelerate the need to be able to have a more rapid 
response.
  The report in September, I guarantee my colleagues, will reflect 
exactly what we see today. Violence will be up in some places, and it 
will be down in others. There will be some tactical successes. Our 
military will deserve the credit for those, and our soldiers will have 
earned those tactical successes the hard way. But no matter what 
sacrifices they have made, and they will have made extraordinary 
sacrifices, the fact remains that absent the political differences, 
which already we are hearing they will not make, and they are not 
prepared to engage in, absent that, the civil war will be raging on and 
squabbling Iraqi politicians and sectarian forces will refuse to 
compromise. And, most importantly, despite the so-called breathing room 
that

[[Page S9108]]

the escalation was supposed to provide, there will be no real political 
progress.
  What is happening now is as disturbing as anything I have seen in the 
23 years that I have been in the Senate. I came here in 1985 during the 
height of the Cold War. President Reagan was at that time leading us in 
an effort to try to confront the continued nuclear confrontation under 
which we had lived since the end of World War II. I think all of us 
remember well what a critical moment of confrontation that was.
  But I came here principally on this issue of war and peace. It was 
also a time when we were deeply caught up in an illegal war in Central 
America, and the issue of the contras came to dominate the debate in 
Washington for a period of time. I mention that because the issues of 
the lessons of war and how America goes to war and what we do has been 
something that has been at the center of my involvement in public life.
  I must say, what I see today happening, I regret, reminds me of what 
I thought was a lesson that we had learned in the course of the Vietnam 
war, and something that we had always resolved to avoid.
  Many of us remember how then-President Nixon continued our 
involvement because he didn't want history to judge him as having lost 
a war, notwithstanding that he didn't begin it, he inherited it. So we 
continued our intervention in a civil war for pride and to save face, 
not because we had a winning strategy. Presidents and politicians may 
have the luxury of worrying about losing face or worrying about their 
legacy, but the Senate has the responsibility to worry about young 
Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives now for a 
policy that is failing now.
  In recent weeks, some have reminded me of a question I asked when I 
returned from service in Vietnam almost 40 years ago, when I spoke from 
my heart about what I thought was wrong with that war. Back in 1971, I 
was privileged to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
and raised the question: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die 
for a mistake? I never thought I would be reliving that question again. 
I never thought I would have parents of young Americans killed in Iraq 
look me in the eye and tell me: Senator, my son died in vain.
  On a personal level, I happen to disagree with that statement. I 
think each of my colleagues probably does also. I believe that any 
American--I heard the Senator from Idaho talking about this--no matter 
the bad decisions made in Washington, no matter the faults of the 
policy, any American who gives up life or limb for love of country has 
never done so in vain. Because service to country under any 
circumstances is the highest calling there is. I would like to be able 
to tell those parents that their sons and daughters died for a policy 
that was equal to their service and equal to their sacrifice. I thought 
we had learned something from Vietnam. I thought we had learned 
something from a war that went on and on, a war that was escalated long 
after Presidents and policymakers knew that no number of American 
troops could end the civil war between the Vietnamese. Here we are back 
in the same place today, where no number of American troops in Iraq can 
end a civil war between Iraqis.
  I think most of our colleagues understand this war in Iraq was a 
disastrous mistake and the policy being pursued today which doesn't 
resolve the fundamental differences that are propelling Iraqis to kill 
Iraqis is itself a mistake. So we are seeing a war prolonged and 
prosecuted not for a winning strategy. No general has come to us, no 
administration official has come to us in 407, where we meet for our 
secret briefings, or in any committee and said: This is a winning 
strategy. What we have is a hope, a wing, and a prayer that somehow 
these Iraqis are going to come together and make some decisions.
  But we don't even have the kind of leverage diplomacy that war 
deserves to maximize the ability of those people to come together. We 
are seeing a war prolonged to prosecute it not for a winning strategy 
but for a refusal to accept reality.
  What is that reality? We have heard it from General Casey, General 
Abizaid, General Petraeus, from the Secretary of State, from the 
President, and the Vice President--there is no military solution.
  Each Member has to ask themselves in these next days, what is our 
responsibility to our soldiers and to our country--not to our political 
party, not to an ideology. What is our responsibility to the soldiers 
and to country? I think it is pretty straightforward. It is to get the 
policy right, not in September but now.
  The only question on this Senate floor now is whether we are going to 
have the courage to change the policy and get it right. The only 
question is whether we are going to stop this administration from 
adding to the thousands of mistakes compounded one upon the other or 
whether we are going to say: Well, we would like to do it. We kind of 
have the responsibility to. We hear people in cloakrooms privately 
saying: I think it is wrong. Boy, it is screwed up. But it doesn't 
translate into votes. It is that simple. If you think the policy is 
broken now, then we ought to fix it now, because lives are at stake, as 
are the interests of our country. Our security is at stake, and the war 
on terror is at stake.
  If anybody needs a reminder of the urgency, I say to them 
respectfully: You don't have to wait until September to get a reminder. 
All you have to do is go out to Arlington Cemetery almost any day of 
the week. You can see the many military funerals but particularly those 
of servicemembers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can see the 
precise military honor given to each of those soldiers, the flags 
draping the coffin rippling in the breeze. You can see the honor guard 
folding that flag meticulously into that sharp triangle of blue and 
white stars and then handing it to the loved ones, the wife, the 
mother, husband, father. Then hear those words: On behalf of a grateful 
nation, and watch people crumble.
  We are losing about 100 soldiers a month. I ask my colleagues: How 
many more times is that scene going to be repeated between now and 
September? How many more times is that scene going to be repeated 
before this institution does what it is supposed to do? How are you 
going to feel in September if you finally wind up saying: Well, I think 
the policy is broken now? And what will happen with respect to the 
parents of those soldiers and their families, those who gave their 
lives so we could wait for a report to tell us the obvious, what we 
know today?
  Over a year ago, Senator Feingold and I came to the Senate floor and 
we asked our colleagues to confront this very reality, to recognize the 
fact that our own generals knew even then there was no American 
military solution to an Iraqi civil war, to acknowledge that the 
political progress necessary for the Iraqis to end their civil war 
would come only if America compelled them to act by imposing meaningful 
deadlines and leveraging those deadlines with legitimate diplomatic 
effort. That was 1 year ago. We got 13 votes. People said at the time: 
Well, we are not ready. I am not there yet. One thousand Americans have 
died since then. I ask those folks: What about now? Are you ready now 
or will it take another thousand?
  It is not the numbers per se, because America has lost many more 
people in other wars. What it is is the numbers measured against the 
strategy and the progress. That is where our responsibility lies. By 
any measurement, we have a requirement to respond now. Those 13 votes 
have now grown to more than 50 votes today, but still the policy is the 
same.
  Today Senator Levin and Senator Reed, myself and others are asking 
the Members of the Senate to look hard at what we are proposing. Don't 
fall prey to the quick hit, easy stereotype, political denunciation of 
what is happening here. This is a legitimate policy proposal which, if 
it were joined in in a bipartisan way, would send a critical message to 
Iraqis and to folks in the region about the dynamic that has to change 
in order to truly meet all of our strategic interests in that region.

  I have heard some people use descriptions that it is a recipe for 
failure. Well, measured against what, No. 1? No. 2, it is the only way, 
according to most of the experts outside the Senate, to actually 
leverage a shift in behavior by the Iraqis who today believe they can 
continue to play the American presence off for their own political 
purposes. The fact is, it is only by shifting

[[Page S9109]]

to a different deployment, which is what we do. There is no 
precipitous, complete withdrawal from Iraq, to the chagrin of some 
people who think there absolutely should be. There is a responsible, 
calculated, carefully timed process by which, together with our own 
deployment schedules, we have laid out an ability for the President to 
continue to finish the training, to chase al-Qaida and prosecute the 
war on terror, and to protect American forces.
  According to the Iraq Study Group, according to all of the outside 
analyses that have looked at this issue, the fact is, those are the 
only legitimate things we ought to be called on to do a year from now. 
Nobody is talking about next month or 2 months from now that suddenly 
Iraq would be abandoned. The fact is, we have come to a moment where 
the private hand wringing we see in the elevators and in private 
conversations has run its course. It is time to speak one's conscience 
publicly through votes, not privately.
  It is legitimate to suggest that to wait until September for a 
report, where most of the intelligence community and most of the 
observers we have talked to who have followed this issue closely and 
report to us appropriately tell us themselves that there is precious 
little, if any, advance with respect to the political compromise, makes 
it exceedingly difficult to be able to suggest that. I think we have 
lost 523 Americans who have died since the escalation started. In the 
next 2 months at the rate of 100 a month, you are looking at over 200 
that we know will die for a policy that remains a mistake over those 
next 2 months.
  Let me lay out for a moment where we are with respect to this 
political solution, because it makes the picture even more stark. It 
has been over 1 year now since the Maliki government took power. What 
have we asked of them? What have they agreed to? What have they 
accomplished?
  Virtually nothing accomplished politically. But it is not the first 
time the Iraqis have not met any of the requests made of them and items 
agreed to. The fact is that 9 months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to 
approve a new oil law and a provincial election law. Neither one has 
been approved. Eight months ago was the deadline for a new de-
Baathfication law to help bring the Sunnis into the government. Guess 
what. It hasn't been approved, and nothing happened as a consequence of 
its not being approved. Seven months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to 
approve legislation to disarm the militias. Absolutely no progress has 
been made on this crucial legislation and the militias continue to 
wreak havoc. Six months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to complete a 
constitutional review process. The constitutional committee hasn't even 
drafted proposed amendments, and the Iraqis remain far apart on basic 
issues such as federalism and the fate of the divided city of Kirkuk.
  So we find ourselves today no closer to a political solution than we 
were when the Maliki government took power over 1 year ago, but over 
1,100 American troops have given their lives since that time. We are no 
closer than we were in January when the President decided to disregard 
key elements of the Iraq Study Group and announced the escalation, but 
over 600 additional American troops have died since then. Without real 
deadlines to pressure the Iraqis to a new reality, we will not be able 
to leverage their behavior. If you can't do it that way, having seen 
that we can't do it this other way, it may be that you can't do it, in 
which case American troops should not be caught in the middle of what 
they are determined to pursue.
  One-third of the Cabinet in Iraq, including the major Sunni party, is 
currently boycotting the Government. Iraq's Parliament, which cannot 
even muster a quorum more than once every week or two, is reportedly 
still going to go on vacation for the entire month of August without 
having met their schedule.
  It is pretty hard to discern how you turn to the parent of a troop 
who is maimed or killed in the course of the month of August while the 
Iraqi politicians are vacationing without even meeting one of the 
political requirements that has been set out. So I think there is a 
guarantee they are not going to meet the political progress before 
September, absent some change that is not currently on the horizon.
  The front page of Sunday's Washington Post tells us pretty much all 
we need to know:

       [T]he Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the 
     political and security goals or timelines President Bush set 
     for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. 
     policy.

  So time is not on our side, and it has not been on our side for a 
long time, and no escalation is going to change that.
  The President keeps telling us, and tells Americans, that we must not 
abandon the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq and leave them with a safe 
haven. Well, how many times do we have to say it? We all agree with 
that. That is not even on the table. No one is talking about abandoning 
Iraq to al-Qaida. No one is talking about not continuing to prosecute 
the war against al-Qaida.
  In fact, in the Levin-Reed-Kerry amendment there is a specific 
statement with respect to a specific provision with respect to the 
President's need to continue to prosecute al-Qaida in Iraq. We all 
agree with that. That is not the issue. What it is is a phony argument, 
and I think our troops and the country deserve better than a phony 
argument. We deserve more than a Presidential straw man in a debate 
while real men and women are fighting and putting their lives on the 
line for us.
  Our bill keeps in place the troops necessary to prosecute al-Qaida. 
Our bill keeps in place the troops necessary to complete the training 
of Iraqis to stand up for themselves. Our bill keeps in place the 
troops necessary to protect American facilities and forces. And 1 year 
from now that is all our mission ought to be.
  We have troops in many other parts of the region--Kuwait, Bahrain, in 
the Gulf, and many other places--and we have the ability to do what we 
need to do to represent our interests with respect to Iran and with 
respect to the region. But we must redefine our mission and focus on 
our vital national interests, and chief among those is fighting al-
Qaida smartly.
  I believe it is fundamentally wrong to sacrifice over 100 American 
troops per month as we stretch our military past the breaking point for 
a policy that we know does not address the fundamental issues and 
resolve those issues. The troops deserve to know they are being asked 
to sacrifice for real progress. It is wrong to keep spending over $10 
billion each month--$456 billion in total--for this war of choice. We 
cannot continue telling Americans that refereeing an Iraqi civil war is 
worth more in our blood and treasure than it would have been to provide 
Head Start for a year to 60 million of our children or to provide 
nearly 4 years of health care to every child in America or to provide a 
tenfold increase in foreign aid to express the real face and values of 
America all over the world.
  In fact, all of the money that has been spent in Iraq could have 
funded a Middle East development plan nearly four times as large as the 
Marshall Plan, a plan that would have helped reduce radicalism rather 
than enflame it.
  We also cannot continue to squander our moral authority and offer al-
Qaida a greater recruiting tool than they could ever have hoped to 
create for themselves.
  So my hope is we would work to find a genuine bipartisan majority in 
the Senate, a majority of conscience, a pragmatic and patriotic 
majority committed to work across party lines to right a failed policy 
in Iraq and leave in place a sustainable strategy.
  Now, let me say a word about that to my colleagues.
  We keep hearing the words ``precipitous'' and ``failure.'' None of us 
want failure. We want success. What we are hearing today is--we may 
have differing views about how you get it; it is not often talked 
about, but it is clear, and I think it should be talked about--that if 
we are unsuccessful in seeking the kind of political compromise 
necessary, there will be a lot of killing that will continue, and there 
will be people who have put themselves on the line to fight for their 
own future and for democracy whom we will have obligations to. We need 
to live up to them.
  That is another lesson of Vietnam.
  We need desperately to work together in the best traditions of the 
Senate and the country to find what I

[[Page S9110]]

think is real common ground--that we have interests in the region, 
interests in Iraq, interests with respect to the Middle East peace 
process, that we will have long-term interests and obligations no 
matter who is President of the United States or how we approach this 
and that we need to shift course in order to get to that place.
  Now, some have insisted on seeing this entire issue exclusively 
through the prism of victory or defeat over an enemy in battle. But 
that simply is not the reality of what we see in Iraq today in a civil 
war. Iraq is a chaotic society, a failed state. The real question is: 
How do you work together to craft a strategy that is sustainable 
militarily, politically, financially, and diplomatically? There are 
areas of broad bipartisan agreement for those who are willing to do 
that work of building consensus.
  First of all, I think there is agreement there will be some residual 
presence among at least the majority of the people on our side of the 
aisle. In addition, all of us are concerned that our redeployment from 
Iraq must not happen in a manner that draws us back into a greater 
conflict at a later date. We ought to be working together to lay the 
groundwork not just for the next few months but for the next years down 
the road throughout the region.
  There is broad agreement that we must refocus our mission on what 
ought to be our core objective: fighting terrorists. Indeed, in the 
alternative, we are creating more terrorists daily as a result of our 
policy than if we were to shift it.
  So refocusing the mission means American troops should be hunting and 
killing al-Qaida and not being killed on patrol through the streets of 
Baghdad in the middle of a civil strife where they become a target of 
opportunity for any person who wants to create a headline.
  It means training Iraqis to patrol Iraqi streets and refocusing our 
mission on preventing this war from spreading into a regional conflict.
  And finally--and this is perhaps most important of all because you 
cannot get to any of the other things if you do not do this; and we 
have not done it--we need to embark on a major diplomatic outreach to 
restore America's influence and credibility in the Middle East. I will 
offer an amendment asking the Senate to go on record supporting a 
standing conference for the region, including the Permanent Five of the 
United Nations and all the regional partners and neighbors and parties, 
in order to reclaim the diplomatic initiative in Iraq and throughout 
the region.
  This debate also ought to be part of a larger framework. In Lebanon, 
the Siniora Government is hanging on by a thread as it confronts Sunni 
extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the north and Shia extremists led 
by an empowered Hezbollah in the south. Iran and Syria have stepped 
into the vacuum, leading reconstruction efforts after the last war and 
creating a greater connection to the people in the street as a result. 
Now they are rearming Hezbollah for the next war. The Palestinians have 
fought a brief civil war that left an emboldened Hamas in control of 
Gaza, and again Iran and Syria stand poised to take advantage of that.
  Never has there been a more important moment to try to move together 
collectively, diplomatically in that effort. None of these events, 
frankly, should have taken us by surprise because King Abdullah of 
Jordan loudly warned of three civil wars last year. Yet time and again 
we seem to be taken by surprise when events on the ground spin out of 
control, and then we are left scrambling to patch together an ad hoc 
response from half a world away. That simply cannot continue. It is not 
in our interest. It certainly is not in the interest of the region.
  So we need a reliable multilateral regional forum for preventing 
these situations from becoming crises--and for responding when they do. 
That is why we have to lead the effort to convene Iraq's leaders and 
key regional players in the effort to do that.
  In the end, we need to reach for the best traditions of the Senate 
and look back to the bipartisan accomplishments of men such as 
Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg, who chaired the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee and worked closely with Democratic President Harry 
Truman, and together they helped to create--were the principal leaders 
in creating--a new world order and a winning strategy in the Cold War. 
They cooperated on a series of institutions and treaties--NATO, the 
IMF, the U.N. Charter, the Marshall Plan--and all of those outlived 
both of them.
  When Arthur Vandenberg passed away in 1951, the Chaplain at his 
funeral said:

       We thank Thee that in the gathering storm of aggression 
     which now rages, Thy servant Arthur H. Vandenberg, in a time 
     that called for greatness, grew into greatness.

  This is a long time since the time of Arthur Vandenberg and Harry 
Truman, but for the Senate to live up to its own obligations and 
possibilities, I believe we ought to go back to the politics that stops 
at the water's edge when it comes to foreign policy. I think we ought 
to grab that opportunity here and now to change our policy in Iraq. 
Why? Not for partisan advantage but to strengthen our country in the 
pursuit of our interests in the region and to truly support our troops 
and provide the kind of direction that will strengthen America and 
strengthen us in the war on terror.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I support this amendment for the 
dignified treatment of wounded warriors. It creates a comprehensive 
policy for the care and management of wounded military servicemembers 
and addresses the health care needs of servicemembers and their 
families. We urgently need this provision for a seamless transition 
from military to civilian life.
  The policy and standards for the DOD and the Veterans' Administration 
in this provision will streamline medical and physical disability 
evaluation processes between the two agencies, allowing for more 
immediate attention to the care of our wounded instead of focusing on 
paperwork for the board. This is an exhausting process.
  The care of our wounded servicemembers' families is addressed by 
reimbursing them for related expenses such as travel to medical 
appointments, or providing medical care to those family members who are 
providing support to severely injured servicemembers.
  This is needed legislation to continue and enhance treatment and 
diagnosis for traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress 
disorder, by developing Centers of Excellence, establishing 
requirements for research, and developing a standard process for pre 
and post deployment screenings. The amendment will assure a fully 
coordinated system and it improves the medical tracking process and 
establishes protocols for quality assurance for deployed 
servicemembers.
  This legislation also directs a jointly integrated policy, created 
and administered by the Department of Defense and the Veterans' 
Administration, to better manage and transition servicemembers exiting 
active service to civilian life.
  It requires these two Departments to develop a joint electronic 
medical record by 2010.
  It establishes a joint DOD-VA program office that is responsible for 
the development, testing, and implementation of the joint health 
record.
  This will expedite the transition of servicemembers to the VA and 
allow for immediate and uninterrupted treatment by VA clinics and 
hospitals.
  The policies set forth in this amendment will enhance the care for 
the severely ill or injured by ensuring those former servicemembers who 
were injured between 2001 and 2012 will receive medical and dental care 
up to 5 years after separation from the military.
  These initiatives are all very much in need to better provide the 
support and care our dedicated servicemembers deserve, especially after 
putting their lives on the line.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. This legislation will 
bring long needed reforms to the transition process between the 
Department of Defense and the VA.
  The controversy at Walter Reed again brought to light the 
shortcomings in the process our returning veterans must deal with in 
their difficult transition from soldier to civilian. Just as the living 
conditions that came to light are unacceptable, so too are the 
countless stories detailing the maze of forms, hearings, and medical 
evaluations that prevent so many of our veterans from getting the 
health care and benefits they need and a grateful nation wishes to 
provide them.

[[Page S9111]]

  Too often, it seems that rather than thanking the soldier for their 
sacrifice, this system sets up yet another battle of bureaucracy. Too 
often, it seems that the system is stacked against the very soldiers it 
is designed to help. Too often, veterans must seek out their own 
treatment options and benefits or risk missing deadlines and losing 
benefits. It doesn't have to be this way. We have an obligation not 
only to fulfill the promises we make to America's fighting men and 
women, but to do so in a manner that ensures the benefits we owe them 
are made readily available.
  That this bill will push DOD and VA to prepare a comprehensive and 
coordinated strategy to help the soldier in their transition to 
civilian is a critical correction to a long-flawed process. Currently, 
soldiers can be discharged with little more than directions to the 
nearest VA and a stack of paperwork a team of lawyers would struggle to 
complete. The chasm that currently exists between DOD and VA has 
swallowed too many bright and talented individuals trying to put their 
life back together after sacrificing so much for this great Nation.
  This amendment requires a comprehensive policy on the transition of 
our wounded soldiers back to civilian life. It will push the reform of 
such problem areas such as the medical hold status, a situation in 
which soldiers can sit for months on end with their life on hold while 
DOD decides what to do with them; the medical evaluation process where 
soldiers' disability ratings are chronically underrated; and improved 
sharing of records between DOD and VA, amazingly not a common practice 
even in this day and age.
  I am particularly proud to support this bill because of the priority 
it places on treatment of traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic 
stress disorder. Medical research still has a long way to go before we 
can wholly treat TBI's and PTSD, but this bill goes a long way towards 
creating an extensive strategy for diagnosing and rehabilitating 
servicemembers afflicted with these conditions.
  We must lift the stigma and educate soldiers that these conditions 
are as real as a bullet wound, and can be just as deadly. This bill 
does just that. The emphasis on pre-and post-deployment assessments 
will revolutionize the military's process of diagnosis and treatment.
  Due to the unique nature of these injuries and the delay in symptoms 
that so often occurs, many veterans have gone without treatment and 
suffered a lifetime of pain and anguish because we have not had these 
safeguards in place. Thankfully, with this bill the Congress is saying, 
``no longer.'' No longer will we stand idly by while veterans are 
discharged from DOD and fade into the shadows of society. No longer 
will we turn a blind eye to cries for help from America's bravest. No 
longer will we ignore the needs of veterans who have sacrificed so much 
for their country.
  I am proud to support this proposal extending health care to 
medically retired servicemembers for 3 additional years. Sometimes we 
forget that when these veterans leave the military, they leave behind 
their career, their pay and their way of life. By allowing them steady 
access to health care, we give them some sense of normalcy as they 
begin a new chapter in their lives.
  I do believe there is much work left to be done, and as a Congress we 
must remain vigilant to ensure that the spirit as well as the letter of 
this legislation becomes law and the reforms are carried out to their 
fullest. One way of remaining vigilant in the pursuit of a smooth 
transition from solider to veteran is to provide resources to outside 
watchdogs to help ensure transparency and advocacy in the process. That 
is why I have introduced the Veterans Navigator Act, which will provide 
$25 million in Federal grants over the next 5 fiscal years to create a 
pilot program to fund ``Navigators'' to help veterans enter the system 
and will build on existing programs run by veterans service 
organizations, VSOs, and other experienced organizations. While the 
dignified treatment of wounded warriors amendment will bring about many 
long-overdue reforms to the transition process, veteran navigators 
could be particularly critical as independent nongovernmental sources 
of information and advice for the veteran during their transition. In 
fact, navigators could play a vital role in the successful 
implementation of the changes made in the Dignified Treatment of 
Wounded Warriors Act, as they can be watchdog and counsel, 
whistleblower and advocate. In short, because the veteran navigators 
will not be part of the government system, they will be better able to 
advocate for veterans.
  The very least that we can do is ensure that all of these brave men 
and women are able to access the medical benefits to which they are 
entitled and the care which they require, particularly in this, their 
time of greatest need. At some point in each of our lives, we might 
need a guiding hand to help us find our way. These brave men and women 
went out across the world for us, with this bill I believe we are 
stepping out for them.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, providing for our men and women in 
uniform, and their families, is our highest priority on the Armed 
Services Committee, and this bill will provide a comprehensive approach 
to caring for those, who through their courage, have sacrificed greatly 
for our country. Our Nation owes these brave men and women nothing less 
than the finest possible care.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, if it is 
agreeable with Senator Levin, that Senator Stabenow be allowed 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, that, of course, would be fine with me, 
but we have a vote scheduled at 4 o'clock. If that is going to delay 
that vote, we better clear that with folks who may be relying upon a 4 
o'clock vote.
  Madam President, how long will the Senator from Michigan wish to 
speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Ideally, 10 minutes, 8 minutes--somewhere in that 
range--7, 8 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, then I join in that unanimous consent 
request that the Senator from Michigan be recognized for up to 10 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. So 3 minutes after 4 o'clock.
  Mr. LEVIN. Now the vote will be delayed until about 5 after 4 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts for his eloquence and passion and knowledge 
and leadership on all of these critical issues related to Iraq and what 
we need to be doing to keep our country safe.
  I thank also Senator Carl Levin, our senior Senator from Michigan, 
for all his wonderful leadership as he has moved this bill and so many 
other bills through the Congress that deal with supporting our troops, 
being a strong military, and now making sure we are there for our 
troops when they come home.
  I thank also Senator John McCain for his graciousness today, as well 
as for his work with Senator Levin. I thank Senator Danny Akaka, 
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Larry Craig, the 
ranking member, for their bipartisan effort.
  This has truly been an excellent example of what we can do when we 
work together on something such as the wounded warrior amendment, which 
I am proud to be a cosponsor of. But the bipartisan effort, the effort 
between two committees of the Senate, working together, has been 
wonderful, and we now have an amendment in front of us, the Levin-
McCain and others amendment, that is critically important to pass.
  I stand here today as a daughter of a World War II Navy vet and the 
wife of an Air Force vet of 14 years, and I am very proud of what we 
are doing and what our new majority is doing to advocate for our troops 
and our veterans.
  For too many soldiers and marines, the flight out of Iraq or 
Afghanistan is the first step in a long journey back to the lives they 
left at home.
  Those wounded in combat face a second tour of duty--a tour of duty 
marked by long hours of rehabilitation, often painful medical 
procedures, and a physical or psychological adjustment to a life lived 
with the scars of war.
  When the men and women of our Armed Forces put on the uniform, they

[[Page S9112]]

are making a promise to defend America. In return, we promise them that 
their Nation will be there for them when they come home.
  Our Armed Forces truly are the finest patriots our Nation has to 
offer--truly. As members of an all-volunteer military, charged with 
defending the greatest democracy on Earth, our soldiers and sailors and 
airmen and marines have proven their bravery, courage, and honor time 
and again. They don't need more empty promises. What they need and what 
we owe them is a system that works for them when they are wounded, 
either physically or mentally, in the service of our country.

  I am very proud of the fact that our new majority has made both 
supporting our troops and our veterans one of our very top priorities. 
The budget resolution we passed earlier this year places fully funding 
veterans' health care, working with all of our veterans service 
organizations, as one of our very top budget priorities. Now we have in 
front of us another important way to support our troops coming home who 
are wounded.
  We are a nation at war. We know that. We are currently ill-equipped 
to deal with the human consequences of that war.
  The administration's failed planning for this war did not end at the 
borders of Iraq. It stretched into Walter Reed Hospital and into every 
veterans' health care facility, into every community that has sent an 
able-bodied son or daughter off to fight, only to be faced with the 
realities of an injured veteran returning home. Repeated redeployments 
have only compounded the problem, as we talked about yesterday, as we 
debated the important Webb amendment which, I might add, was passed and 
supported by 56 Members, although we could not break the filibuster of 
the Republican caucus. Mental health injuries have increased 
dramatically as troops have been forced to face their second, third, 
and fourth combat redeployments. The lack of time between redeployments 
has increased the physical danger to our troops by sending them back on 
the front lines, overtired, underequipped, and without the increased 
training they need.
  Our heavy reliance on our National Guard has resulted in wounded 
veterans returning to cities and towns all across our country, often to 
communities that are far away from veterans' health care facilities or 
the traditional infrastructure of the military health care system. Our 
troops deserve better in Iraq, and they deserve better when they come 
home.
  Earlier this year a bright light was turned on the deplorable 
conditions faced by some of our returning wounded veterans at Walter 
Reed. The true tragedy of these events is that they are merely a 
symptom of larger problems with a system that too often has let our 
soldiers and veterans down. I am very proud of the leadership coming 
from our caucus, our leader, Senator Reid, and our caucus leadership, 
in focusing the light of day and taking action that has brought us 
today to this very important amendment. There is no room for 
bureaucratic or political squabbling when it comes to the treatment of 
our soldiers and our veterans. The system should serve one mandate and 
one mandate only: providing the highest quality service available to 
all of them, while causing them the least amount of personal hassle and 
frustration.
  Senator Levin's wounded warrior amendment is a much needed step, and 
it is a needed systemwide approach that has been put together on a 
bipartisan basis. It addresses many problems that plague this far too 
often burdened and difficult process while enhancing health care for 
wounded service men and women, including treatment of traumatic brain 
injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, which has been viewed now as 
the signature injury of this war.
  The number of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is growing every 
day. These brave men and women don't have time to wait. They need their 
country to step up right now, and that is what we have the opportunity 
to do together with this amendment.
  We have many disagreements in this body. The various pieces of 
legislation we face on a daily basis require robust debate and 
oftentimes we find ourselves on different sides of the issue of the 
day. I can't imagine, though, how any one of us would oppose this 
amendment. The facts are simple. The system is broken and in need of 
repair. The ones paying the price are our soldiers, our veterans, and 
their families. We need to make changes and we need to make them now.
  This was a war of choice in Iraq, not of necessity. But dealing with 
the consequences of this war is unquestionably a necessity. Our troops 
have done their job and now we need to do ours. I urge my colleagues to 
support the wounded warrior amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2024

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 2024 offered 
by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this amendment, which has been 
modified in agreement with my colleagues on the Democratic side of the 
aisle to reach an amendment I think we can all support, would state it 
is the policy of the United States that we should have a system that 
will protect the United States and its allies against Iranian ballistic 
missiles. The findings are that Congress finds that Iran maintains a 
nuclear program in continued defiance of the international community, 
while developing ballistic missiles of increasing sophistication and 
range that pose a threat to the forward-deployed forces of the United 
States and to its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies in Europe, 
and which eventually pose a threat to the United States homeland.
  That is the problem we are dealing with. So we would state with 
clarity, so there is not any doubt about it--and I think our bill we 
passed in committee does that, but some have misinterpreted it, in my 
opinion--that it would state that it is our policy to develop and 
deploy as soon as technologically possible, in conjunction with allies 
and other nations wherever possible, an effective defense against the 
threat of Iran as described in the previous paragraph.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And to develop an appropriate response.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the amendment as modified is 
within the provisions of the funding in the underlying bill, because 
the bill would authorize an additional $315 million to increase or 
accelerate several near-term missile defense programs that are 
specifically designed to protect our forward-deployed forces, our 
allies, and our friends, for example, the Patriot PAC-3, the Aegis BMD 
program, and the THAAD system. So it is entirely consistent.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill

[[Page S9113]]


     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Feinstein
     Leahy
     Sanders
     Tester
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Dodd
     Johnson
     Obama
     Vitter
  The amendment (No. 2024), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the next order of business we agreed upon 
will be to dispose of the wounded warrior legislation. There are three 
pending amendments which have now all been cleared. They need to be 
prepared and accepted. It may take us 20 minutes or so. Then there will 
be a vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, if I can tell my friend, I think it will 
only take us about 2 minutes since we are in agreement, and then we can 
move to wounded warriors, for the benefit of our colleagues.
  Mr. LEVIN. Five minutes before a vote can begin, that will be fine. 
The sooner the better. We are all happy with that schedule. Is Senator 
Dorgan on the floor?
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield. I will be happy to yield in a 
minute to the Senator from Vermont. The next business, if it is 
agreeable with the ranking member, will be to dispose of the Dorgan 
amendment, at which point we are going to Levin-Reed. Is my 
understanding correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the Dorgan amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Dorgan amendment is an al-Qaida amendment. We are 
trying to work out a UC that involves a series of amendments around 
Levin-Reed, including the Cornyn amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is our intention to set it up so there is at least a 
side by side offered by Senator Cornyn, and there may be additional 
side by sides, if necessary. Is that our basic agreement?
  Mr. LEVIN. Assuming cloture is invoked and we get to a vote on Levin-
Reed, at that point there will be a side by side in this UC with the 
Cornyn amendment, but we have to leave open the possibility, then, of a 
side by side for an amendment with Cornyn.
  Now I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will just give me 
4 minutes. Vermont has lost per capita more men and women in Iraq and 
Afghanistan than any other State. One is being interred tomorrow. I 
wonder if I may have 4 minutes to speak about that person in morning 
business because the family will be here tomorrow for interment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the 
distinguished bill managers and I have been talking about a procedure 
whereby I was under the understanding that I would be allowed to lay 
down my amendment. It would be then set aside, and then later there 
would be an attempt to structure a side by side with the Reed-Levin 
amendment and the Cornyn amendment perhaps for next week, but it will 
have to be done by unanimous consent.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, the staff is preparing a UC 
which covers the entire subject. It is too complex for us to say 
something and get into more trouble. Let's just get the UC.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I may respond, it is the intention to make sure there 
would be a side by side if the procedure, if it comes up----
  Mr. LEVIN. If we get to a vote on Levin-Reed, it is our intention, 
and it will be implemented in a UC, that Senator Cornyn's amendment, 
which he wanted to be voted on side by side, would be voted on side by 
side, but we then need to have the opportunity to have a side by side 
with the Cornyn amendment. I am just cautioning everybody, because we 
have already had enough confusion on this subject, that we should wait 
for the staff to prepare that UC so everybody is satisfied.
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. CORNYN. My question, Madam President, is, my understanding is the 
Cornyn amendment would be laid down this evening perhaps, then set 
aside while we work on the UC that the distinguished chairman referred 
to and perhaps set it up for a vote next week. Is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. My understanding is the current procedure, where we are, 
we alternate amendments. So the Senator from Arizona, the ranking 
member, can designate anybody he wishes on his side to offer an 
amendment. But in terms of laying aside what comes up, when it is voted 
on, and side by sides, that part has to be resolved by a UC.
  Mr. CORNYN. If I may ask one more question, Madam President, is it 
the Senator's intention that following the disposition of the wounded 
warriors amendment that it would be in order for the distinguished 
ranking member on our side to lay down the Cornyn amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. We are going to try to dispose of the Dorgan amendment 
immediately afterward. But the next time the Senator from Arizona can 
designate a Member on his side, it is his intention to have the Senator 
from Texas recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, before the Senator from Vermont speaks, 
I assure the Senator from Texas that there is no intention of depriving 
him of a side by side; that the intention is to frame the UC such that 
there is a side by side, but there is a little parliamentary side of 
it. I hate to take the time of all of our colleagues, but that is the 
intent and the agreement between the two of us to get it done. I will 
have the next amendment after the Dorgan amendment, and I will 
recognize him at that time. Then we will work out the modalities.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in that regard, while the two managers 
are on the Senate floor, on Tuesday, the distinguished senior Senator 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, and I came to the floor to offer our 
amendment--at least to get it filed--on habeas corpus, which has been 
joined by many Senators on both sides of the aisle. That was objected 
to.
  I am just wondering: We have been trying every day since. Can the 
managers give me some idea of when Senator Specter and I may begin the 
debate on that amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, may I say this is one time I am glad I 
am not in the majority.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am trying to figure out how to respond to Senator 
McCain. I am not sure I have a good response.
  Mr. LEAHY. The amendment is filed.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are going to move to the Iraq legislation immediately 
after the disposition of the Dorgan amendment, subject to the Cornyn 
amendment, which will be next which is being figured out in a UC. We 
are then going to go to the Iraq legislation, the Levin-Reed 
legislation, so I cannot tell the Senator from Vermont how long the 
debate on that legislation is going to last. There are many people who 
wish to be recognized thereafter, and I cannot at this time tell him 
which one from our side will be the one to be selected. I don't want to 
make that choice now.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand the response of the 
distinguished senior Senator from Michigan, but I wonder if he might 
give some indication to this Senator whether he believes that at some 
time an effort can be made to bring forward--the amendment has been 
filed. I was erroneous. It has been filed. But assuming it is germane, 
some time the amendment, Specter-Leahy, et al, amendment will be 
brought forth.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is certainly my intention that Senators have that 
opportunity. The Senator from California has asked, a number of other 
Senators have asked, and it is my hope and intent that Senators will 
have an opportunity to offer amendments.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would renew my unanimous consent 
request. Back to where I started.

[[Page S9114]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Vermont Fallen

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this week, the Senate is engaged again in 
an intense debate about one of the most pivotal issues facing our 
Nation and its families right now--the ongoing war in Iraq. There is 
great division in the country and in the Congress on many of these 
issues, but I believe there is one area where we remain united, and 
that is in support and appreciation of our troops and their families 
and friends here at home.
  The Nation shares the sorrow and grief over the loss of so many fine 
Americans in war. Our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have 
come at the cost of precious American lives. No one knows that pain 
more than those loved ones left behind--the spouses, the parents, the 
sons, and the daughters who are left to pick up the pieces. A gaping 
hole of unimaginable proportions opens with each and every one of these 
family losses.
  Families in Vermont have gone through more than their share of the 
pain. Vermont has suffered the highest per capita casualty rate of any 
State in the Nation during these ongoing operations. We are a State of 
just over 600,000 people, and many of our State's sons and daughters 
are part of the Vermont National Guard, the Reserves, and the Active-
Duty Forces. Twenty-six servicemembers with Vermont ties have given 
their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Behind the names of those 
Vermonters are dozens of families and hundreds of friends facing that 
all-too-real and perhaps unknowable loss. When I go to these funerals 
and I look around in the church or the synagogue where the funeral is 
being held, I see so many people I have known from childhood days and 
realize they, too, are members of the family of those who have died.
  Earlier this year, dedicated students at Vermont's Norwich University 
produced a documentary about these families coping with the loss of 
their loved ones. Titled ``Vermont Fallen,'' the film documents how 
many of these family members have reacted, how they have tried to cope. 
In the darkest and saddest of times, this project has helped a new 
Vermont family to emerge, brought together by community screenings of 
the film. They have been able since then to turn to each other for 
comfort.
  The Norwich students' project has offered a glimpse into the searing 
and highly personal grief and mourning that has touched thousands of 
American families and scores of American communities across Vermont and 
across the country. They have produced a tribute that speaks directly 
to each human heart.
  Tomorrow, at Arlington National Cemetery, one of our fallen, 1LT Mark 
Dooley, will be interred. Lieutenant Dooley selflessly died in the line 
of duty in Iraq in 2005. He was a member of the police department in 
Wilmington, VT, a lovely town that is nestled right in southern 
Vermont, almost on a midline with the Green Mountains. My wife Marcelle 
and I went to the police station after his death just to sign the 
condolences and to announce our condolences. Lieutenant Dooley's 
parents will also be there, as well as other members of his family, and 
in a sense, every Vermonter will be there.
  Joining the Dooleys, lending their unique understanding of the 
special bond that comes from it, will be the families of the ``Vermont 
Fallen.'' I hope the Dooleys and what has now become their extended 
family will find comfort in one another. They deserve to be in the 
thoughts, the hearts, and prayers of all Vermonters and every American 
as they gather at Arlington. They are in the thoughts and prayers of 
the Members of the Senate.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a list of the ``Vermont Fallen.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Vermont Casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan

       Twenty-four American servicemen with ties to Vermont have 
     died in Iraq since the war began. One Vermonter has been 
     killed in Afghanistan. A 26th Vermonter died of natural 
     causes in Kuwait while training to go to Iraq:


                                  2007

       Marine Cpl. Christopher Degiovine, 25, who graduated from 
     Essex Junction High School in 2000 and Champlain College in 
     2005, was killed in Anbar Province, Iraq, on April 26.


                                  2006

       U.S. Army Sgt. Carlton A. Clark, 22, of Sharon, was killed 
     Aug. 6 when an improvised bomb detonated next to the vehicle 
     in which he was riding in Baghdad.
       Marine Lance Cpl. Kurt Dechen, 24, of Springfield was 
     killed Aug. 3 during fighting in Iraq's Anbar Province.
       Vermont National Guard Sgt. 1st Class John Thomas Stone of 
     Tunbridge was killed March 29 in southern Afghanistan, when 
     the forward operating base he was in was attacked.
       Vermont National Guard Spc. Christopher Merchant of 
     Hardwick was killed March 1 in a coordinated attack on Iraqi 
     police headquarters in Iraq, roughly three miles northwest of 
     Ramadi.
       Vermont National Guard Sgt. Joshua Allen Johnson, 24, from 
     Richford, where he lived with his grandparents, was killed 
     Jan. 25 in Ramadi. Johnson was born in St. Albans.


                                  2005

       Army National Guard 2nd Lt. Mark Procopio of Burlington was 
     killed Nov. 2 by a homemade bomb while on patrol. Procopio 
     and his patrol were responding to a downed Marine helicopter 
     in Ramadi.
       Army National Guard Spc. Scott P. McLaughlin of Hardwick 
     was killed Sept. 22 after a sniper's bullet pierced the seams 
     of his body armor near Ramadi.
       Army National Guard 1st Lt. Mark H. Dooley, was killed 
     Sept. 19 when the Humvee he was riding in was destroyed by a 
     roadside bomb in Ramadi.
       Army National Guard Sgt. 1st Class Chris S. Chapin, 39, of 
     Proctor, was killed by small arms fire Aug. 23 while 
     performing a civil affairs mission near Ramadi.
       Army Sgt. 1st Class Michael Benson, a Minnesota native, who 
     married a woman from Colchester, was wounded by a roadside 
     bomb in Iraq on Aug. 2. He later died in a military hospital 
     in Washington. He was buried in Belvidere.
       Marine Sgt. Jesse Strong, 24, of Albany, was one of four 
     Marines killed Jan. 26 during an ambush in Iraq's Anbar 
     Province.


                                  2004

       Marine Lance Cpl. Jeffery S. Holmes, 20, of Hartford, was 
     killed on Thanksgiving Day while conducting house-clearing 
     operations in Fallujah.
       Army Staff Sgt. Michael Voss, 35, of Carthage, N.C., was 
     killed Oct. 8 when a roadside bomb exploded in a convoy he 
     was leading back to base near Kirkuk. He was a native of 
     Enosburg;
       Marine Lt. Col. David Greene, 39, of Shelburne died July 29 
     when the helicopter he was piloting was hit by ground fire in 
     Anbar Province.
       Army National Guard Sgt. Jamie Gray, 29, of East Montpelier 
     died June 7 when a bomb exploded south of Baghdad.
       Army National Guard Sgt. Kevin Sheehan, 36, of Milton died 
     May 25 in the same attack that killed Alan Bean Jr.
       Army National Guard Spc. Alan Bean Jr., 22, of Bridport 
     died May 25 during a mortar attack about 25 miles south of 
     Baghdad.
       Maine Army National Guard Spc. Christopher D. Gelineau, 23, 
     who graduated from Mount Abraham Union High School in 
     Bristol, died April 20 after the convoy he was in was 
     ambushed in Mosul.
       Army National Guard Sgt. William Normandy, 42, of East 
     Barre, died March 15 of natural causes while training in the 
     Kuwait desert.
       Army Spc. Solomon C. Bangayan, 24, of Jay, died Jan. 15 
     after his convoy was ambushed in Baghdad.


                                  2003

       Army Capt. Pierre Piche, 29, of Starksboro, died Nov. 15 
     when the helicopter he was in went down in Mosul.
       Army Pvt. Kyle Gilbert, 20, of Brattleboro was killed Aug. 
     6 in fighting in Baghdad.
       Army Sgt. Justin Garvey, 23, who graduated from Proctor 
     High School, was killed July 20 when the convoy he was in was 
     attacked near Tal Afar.
       Army Chief Warrant Officer Erik A. Halvorsen, 40, of 
     Bennington died April 2 when the helicopter he was in crashed 
     near Karbala.
       Marine Cpl. Mark Evnin, 21, South Burlington, died April 3 
     after a firefight near Kut.

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

[[Page S9115]]

  Madam President, I note the presence of the distinguished chairman, 
so I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I join my good friend from Arizona first 
of all in urging people to get their amendments in to us. I don't know 
the time that was suggested by the Senator, but I want to repeat it--
what was it? Well, the earlier the better because we have a lot on our 
plate.
  Madam President, these are the three second-degree amendments--we 
referred to them before--and as soon as these amendments are disposed 
of, we are then going to move to vote on the wounded warriors 
legislation, and I believe we should have a rollcall on that 
legislation.


                Amendment No. 2132 to Amendment No. 2011

(Purpose: To provide and enhance rehabilitative treatment and services 
to veterans with traumatic brain injury and to improve health care and 
                    benefits programs for veterans)

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senators Akaka, Craig, 
Rockefeller, Murray, Brown, Mikulski, and Obama, I call up amendment 
No. 2132, an amendment to provide and enhance rehabilitative treatment 
and services to veterans with traumatic brain injury and to improve 
health care and benefits programs for veterans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Akaka, for 
     himself and Mr. Craig, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
     Brown, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Obama, proposes amendment 
     numbered 2132 to amendment No. 2011.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2132) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


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

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senators Nelson of Nebraska 
and Graham, I call up amendment No. 2160, a second-degree amendment to 
our pending amendment; and on behalf of Senators Nelson and Graham, I 
send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Nelson of 
     Nebraska, for himself and Mr. Graham, proposes amendment 
     numbered 2160, as modified.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide extended benefits under the TRICARE program for 
the primary caregivers of members of the uniformed services who incur a 
               serious injury or illness on active duty)

       On page 34 after line 5, of the amendment insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1627. EXTENDED BENEFITS UNDER TRICARE FOR PRIMARY 
                   CAREGIVERS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES 
                   WHO INCUR A SERIOUS INJURY OR ILLNESS ON ACTIVE 
                   DUTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 1079(d) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2)(A) Subject to such terms, conditions, and exceptions 
     as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, the 
     program of extended benefits for eligible dependents under 
     this subsection shall include extended benefits for the 
     primary caregivers of members of the uniformed services who 
     incur a serious injury or illness on active duty.
       ``(B) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in 
     regulations the individuals who shall be treated as the 
     primary caregivers of a member of the uniformed services for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(C) For purposes of this section, a serious injury or 
     illness, with respect to a member of the uniformed services, 
     is an injury or illness that may render the member medically 
     unfit to perform the duties of the member's office, grade, 
     rank, or rating,'' and that renders a member of the uniformed 
     services dependent upon a caregiver.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2008.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  Amendment (No. 2160), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay 
on the table was agreed to.


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

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senators Nelson of Nebraska 
and Graham, I call up amendment No. 2159, a second-degree amendment to 
the pending amendment regarding travel reimbursement for specialty 
care; and on behalf of Senators Nelson and Graham, I send a 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Nelson of 
     Nebraska, for himself and Mr. Graham, proposes amendment 
     numbered 2159, as modified, to amendment No. 2160.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 31, after line 14 of the amendment insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1622. REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN FORMER MEMBERS OF THE 
                   UNIFORMED SERVICES WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED 
                   DISABILITIES FOR TRAVEL FOR FOLLOW-ON SPECIALTY 
                   CARE AND RELATED SERVICES.

       (a) Travel.--Section 1074i of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection (b):
       ``(b) Follow-on Specialty Care and Related Services.--In 
     any case in which a former member of a uniformed service who 
     incurred a disability while on active duty in a combat zone 
     or during performance of duty in combat related operations 
     (as designated by the Secretary of Defense), and is entitled 
     to retired or retainer pay, or equivalent pay, requires 
     follow-on specialty care, services, or supplies related to 
     such disability at a specific military treatment facility 
     more than 100 miles from the location in which the former 
     member resides, the Secretary shall provide reimbursement for 
     reasonable travel expenses comparable to those provided under 
     subsection (a) for the former member, and when accompaniment 
     by an adult is determined by competent medical authority to 
     be necessary, for a spouse, parent, or guardian of the former 
     member, or another member of the former member's family who 
     is at least 21 years of age.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect January 1, 2008, and shall apply with 
     respect to travel that occurs on or after that date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2159), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I believe we have now disposed of all the 
known amendments to the wounded warrior legislation, and I know that I 
am speaking on behalf of all of us, at least 50 cosponsors, that a lot 
of work was put in by a lot of Senators on this legislation. Both 
committees, Veterans' Affairs and Armed Services, have worked together, 
so thanks to all of the Senators for all of the work that has gone into 
this. In all the bills that have been filed, ideas have been taken from 
so many of those bills, and those Senators are a part of this 
legislation, so I hope we can now promptly, and even unanimously, in a 
very bipartisan way, adopt this legislation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.

[[Page S9116]]

Dodd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 246 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Dodd
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Obama
     Vitter
  The amendment (No. 2019) was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn 
now be recognized to call up amendment No. 2100; that after his 
statement of 20 minutes, his amendment be laid aside; that Senator 
Dorgan then be recognized to offer his amendment No. 2135.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2100 to amendment No. 2011

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment 2100 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2100 to amendment No. 2011.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national 
 security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a failed 
                 state and a safe haven for terrorists)

       At the end of title XV, insert the following:

     SEC. 1535. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF A 
                   FAILED STATE IN IRAQ.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) A failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for 
     Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are 
     determined to attack the United States and United States 
     allies.
       (2) The Iraq Study Group report found that ``[a] chaotic 
     Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for 
     terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally''.
       (3) The Iraq Study Group noted that ``Al Qaeda will portray 
     any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant 
     victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for 
     their cause in the region and around the world''.
       (4) A National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the 
     consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be 
     that--
       (A) Al Qaeda would attempt to use Anbar province to plan 
     further attacks outside of Iraq;
       (B) neighboring countries would consider actively 
     intervening in Iraq; and
       (C) sectarian violence would significantly increase in 
     Iraq, accompanied by massive civilian casualties and 
     displacement.
       (5) The Iraq Study Group found that ``a premature American 
     departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater 
     sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions. . 
     . . The near-term results would be a significant power 
     vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, 
     and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our 
     withdrawal as a historic victory.''
       (6) A failed state in Iraq could lead to broader regional 
     conflict, possibly involving Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and 
     Turkey.
       (7) The Iraq Study group noted that ``Turkey could send 
     troops into northern Iraq to prevent Kurdistan from declaring 
     independence''.
       (8) The Iraq Study Group noted that ``Iran could send 
     troops to restore stability in southern Iraq and perhaps gain 
     control of oil fields. The regional influence of Iran could 
     rise at a time when that country is on a path to producing 
     nuclear weapons.''
       (9) A failed state in Iraq would lead to massive 
     humanitarian suffering, including widespread ethnic cleansing 
     and countless refugees and internally displaced persons, many 
     of whom will be tortured and killed for having assisted 
     Coalition forces.
       (10) A recent editorial in the New York Times stated, 
     ``Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around 
     it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans 
     leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with 
     American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. 
     Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and 
     Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power 
     grabs.''
       (11) The Iraq Study Group found that ``[i]f we leave and 
     Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could 
     eventually require the United States to return''.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Senate should commit itself to a strategy that will 
     not leave a failed state in Iraq; and
       (2) the Senate should not pass legislation that will 
     undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in 
     Iraq.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we debate the so-called new strategy in 
Iraq, and as we once again engage in more than a little political 
posturing that has become so redundant, that has already delayed 
important legislation, not the least of which was the emergency 
appropriations bill to get proper funding and equipment to our troops, 
it appears once again that some of my colleagues in the Senate feel we 
should retreat, thus abandoning what al-Qaida views as the central 
front in their global war of terror, and in so doing, allowing Iraq to 
become a safe haven for al-Qaida, the same terrorist organization that 
hit this country on September 11, 2001.
  I ask my colleagues who want us to abandon this critical fight now, 
if we leave Iraq before the Iraqis can defend and govern themselves, 
then will they answer this question: Will that action strengthen or 
weaken al-Qaida and other foreign jihadists in Iraq and across the 
region? If there is one thing all of us should have learned by now, it 
is that al-Qaida and organizations that emulate it are the face of 
evil. These organizations and the individuals who subscribe to their 
ideology are dedicated to the destruction of the United States, to the 
destruction of Israel, and to committing the most barbaric and 
incomprehensible assaults on innocent civilians that any of us can 
possibly imagine.
  Without a stable government in Iraq, it becomes increasingly likely 
that the training and equipping of terrorists and the planning and 
execution of terror operations can proceed in both Iraq and throughout 
the region with impunity, and that our adversaries will operate with 
little fear of discovery or disruption.
  I also ask my distinguished colleagues who believe that we ought to 
leave Iraq before it is stable: Will al-Qaida and other terrorists then 
follow us here into the United States, even while expanding their 
influence in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and Africa? We have already 
seen numerous attacks occur throughout Europe and Africa from al-Qaida-
linked or al-Qaida-inspired terrorists. With a firm foothold in Iraq, 
al-Qaida would have a safe and unthreatened sanctuary to serve as their 
new base of operations from which they can expand further into the 
Middle East or Africa or Europe, spreading chaos, fear, and strife.
  How long would it be before al-Qaida is able to continue unabated 
with further attacks against the United States including operations 
into and within our country?
  I ask my distinguished colleagues who believe we should retreat and 
surrender before stabilizing Iraq, before

[[Page S9117]]

providing them the opportunity to govern and defend themselves: How 
will we address Iran's continued support of Iraqi insurgents and 
terrorists now that we have definitive evidence of their involvement in 
activities such as the training of terrorists and Shiite militias in 
Iran; operations in Iraq by terrorists trained in Iran by Al-Quds and 
other Iranian special military forces; alliances with Hezbollah and 
other groups, including Iranian-trained and equipped Hezbollah fighters 
operating in Iraq; the provision of the explosive formed penetrator and 
other improvised explosive devices that are killing American soldiers, 
sailors, marines, and airmen; and other aid and assistance directly 
resulting in the death of American citizens serving us bravely in Iraq?
  We must be especially concerned as Iran spreads its power and 
influence in the region, considering their insistence on developing 
nuclear capabilities. I ask my colleagues who subscribe to this 
proposed policy of retreat and surrender: What will Iran do to expand 
their influence in Iraq through their Shia alliances if we stage an 
immediate withdrawal?
  We have seen the impact of Iranian-supported terrorist activity in 
Iraq. Not only have we lost hundreds of American servicemembers due to 
Iranian involvement, not to mention those who still live but live with 
grievous injuries, but scores of Iraqis have died too, including 
innocent civilians who have been the victims of these savage attacks.
  I ask my colleagues who believe we ought to retreat and surrender 
regardless of the circumstances on the ground, regardless of the 
ability of the Iraqis to govern and defend themselves: Will Sunni 
majority nations outside of Iraq, including Saudis and others, stand by 
and let Shiites massacre Sunnis in Iraq? Conversely, will Iran, 
Hezbollah, and others stand by when Sunnis then massacre Shiias in 
retaliation? It is clear that this situation could rapidly deteriorate 
into a full-scale civil war, a massive religious conflict or, at worst, 
uncontrolled genocide on both sides.
  I ask my distinguished colleagues who believe we ought to withdraw 
from Iraq before that country is able to defend and govern itself: What 
is the resultant impact with the Kurds in northern Iraq and with Turkey 
if we stage an immediate withdrawal?
  Cross-border incursions by both PKK elements operating from Kurdish 
safe havens in northern Iraq, and retaliatory attacks by Turkish forces 
could become routine, further destabilizing Iraq, Turkey, and the 
region.
  I ask my distinguished colleagues who believe we ought to withdraw 
from Iraq before that country is able to govern and defend itself: What 
will happen to our Iraqi allies who have fought alongside of us? How 
will this affect America's ability to conduct future multinational 
operations?
  Some have argued we should have shaped and relied upon a stronger 
coalition before undertaking operations in Iraq. Clearly we lose the 
ability to build such a coalition in the future if we leave our allies 
behind as we precipitously withdraw from Iraq.
  I ask my distinguished colleagues who believe we ought to withdraw 
from Iraq before that country is able to govern and defend itself: What 
is the scope of humanitarian and refugee crisis that will ensue if we 
suddenly depart from Iraq? Where and how will the United States address 
that consequent crisis? It was not that long ago we experienced the 
largest scale humanitarian and refugee flow after the first gulf war. 
We were able to eventually deal with that situation through a 
substantial commitment of forces to Joint Task Force Provide Comfort in 
northern Iraq. Under this new scenario, it would be difficult if not 
impossible for us to adequately help the large segments of the Iraqi 
population trying to flee from unrelenting terror when our forces 
suddenly withdraw.
  I ask our colleagues who believe we ought to withdraw from Iraq 
before the Iraqis are able to govern and defend themselves: Are the 
Iraqis ready to assume full responsibility and control of their own 
security, economic development, reconstruction, and governance? If not, 
how can we posture the Iraqis for that desired end state, while at the 
same time withdrawing under continued enemy pressure?
  Finally, I ask my colleagues on the other side this important 
question: What is your plan? What is your plan for the way forward in 
Iraq and in the region?
  Our presence in Iraq is not about pride. It is not, as some have 
suggested, solely to benefit the Iraqis. Instead it is about our own 
vital national security and our ability to address the threats to our 
Nation. Our success is not just about providing the people of Iraq a 
safe environment to develop and provide for their own self-governance, 
it is about America's national security, the stability of the Middle 
East, and our partners in the war on terror.
  We have to do what is right for America's national security, which 
means helping to stabilize the Middle East and supporting our partners 
in the war on terror. These 10 concerns have caused me to draft an 
amendment which I believe must be added to this bill. This amendment 
expresses the sense of Congress that ``the Senate should commit itself 
to a strategy that will not leave a failed state in Iraq.'' It also 
states that ``the Senate should not pass legislation that will 
undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.''
  The Iraq Study Group, National Intelligence Estimates, and even the 
New York Times have all repeatedly warned against the consequences of a 
failed state in Iraq. Instability in the region could lead to genocide, 
retaliatory attacks against our allies, invasions from neighboring 
countries, and the proliferation of global terrorism. We cannot allow 
these possibilities to become realities. Withdrawing our troops now or 
on the expedited basis proposed by Senators Reed and Levin, when Iraq 
is not yet able to sustain itself, will only sink the fledgling nation 
into further chaos and disorder while ensuring that either we will 
recommit our troops later to a more tumultuous and dangerous battle or 
that we will leave ourselves open to future attacks from a fortified 
terrorist network.
  I urge all my colleagues to reject any notion of a premature troop 
withdrawal and join me in expressing the importance of a stable Iraqi 
nation, not just for the benefit of the people of Iraq but for our own 
national security. We can't talk about ideas such as withdrawing our 
troops without looking at the consequences. I know all of us join in 
believing that we want to get our troops home as soon as we can. The 
only difference between us is those who believe we ought to do so based 
on an arbitrary timetable and those who believe we ought to do so after 
we are able to leave the Iraqis in a position to govern and defend 
themselves, not just, again, for their security and safety but for ours 
as well. Because a failed state in Iraq is a clear and present danger 
to the American people. It would be terrible, indeed, if, having let 
that happen and seeing more Americans die as they did on 9/11 as a 
result of al-Qaida's strength and its ability to recruit, train, and 
then export terrorist attacks to the United States and around the 
world, that more people in this country and other countries around the 
world had to die. That is at stake.
  If we are going to talk about ideas such as those proposed in the 
Reed-Levin and other amendments, we need to confront directly the 
consequences of our actions. This amendment expresses the sense of the 
Senate that we will take no action that will make it more likely that 
Iraq will end up a failed state, again, in the national security 
interest of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                Amendment No. 2135 to Amendment No. 2011

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 2135, 
and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 2135.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: Relating to bringing Osama bin Laden and other leaders of al 
                           Qaeda to justice)

       At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:

[[Page S9118]]

     SEC. 1218. JUSTICE FOR OSAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER LEADERS OF 
                   AL QAEDA.

       (a) Enhanced Reward for Capture of Osama Bin Laden.--
     Section 36(e)(1) of the State Department Basic Authorities 
     Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708e)(1)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``The Secretary shall 
     authorize a reward of $50,000,000 for the capture, or 
     information leading to the capture, of Osama bin Laden.''.
       (b) Status of Efforts To Bring Osama Bin Laden and Other 
     Leaders of Al Qaeda to Justice.--
       (1) Reports required.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days 
     thereafter, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, in coordination with the Director of National 
     Intelligence, jointly submit to Congress a report on the 
     progress made in bringing Osama bin Laden and other leaders 
     of al Qaeda to justice.
       (2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include, current as of the date of such report, the 
     following:
       (A) An assessment of the likely current location of 
     terrorist leaders, including Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-
     Zawahiri, and other key leaders of al Qaeda.
       (B) A description of ongoing efforts to bring to justice 
     such terrorist leaders, particularly those who have been 
     directly implicated in attacks in the United States and its 
     embassies.
       (C) An assessment of whether the government of each country 
     assessed as a likely location of top leaders of al Qaeda has 
     fully cooperated in efforts to bring those leaders to 
     justice.
       (D) A description of diplomatic efforts currently being 
     made to improve the cooperation of the governments described 
     in subparagraph (C).
       (E) A description of the current status of the top 
     leadership of al Qaeda and the strategy for locating them and 
     bringing them to justice.
       (F) An assessment of whether al Qaeda remains the terrorist 
     organization that poses the greatest threat to United States 
     interests, including the greatest threat to the territorial 
     United States.
       (3) Form of report.--Each report submitted to Congress 
     under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in a classified form, 
     and shall be accompanied by a report in unclassified form 
     that redacts the classified information in the report.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, my colleague Senator Conrad, and my colleague Senator Salazar. 
My understanding is we will vote on this amendment in the morning. I 
don't know whether there has been a unanimous consent order on that 
matter, but my understanding is it will be voted on at 9:30. I wanted 
to spend a few minutes talking about what this amendment is. Let me 
begin by pointing out the following.
  It has been nearly 6 years since Osama bin Laden and the leadership 
of al-Qaida ordered an attack on our country on 9/11/2001. Thousands of 
Americans were killed, innocent Americans murdered by Osama bin Laden 
and the leadership of al-Qaida. Nineteen terrorists with box cutters 
using commercial airliners loaded with fuel attacked this country. 
Thousands died. Six years later, Osama bin Laden is still free. He has 
not been brought to justice. Six years later, we are told in reports by 
senior officials in the newspapers--and I will read some of them--that 
al-Qaida is stronger than it has been in years. Six years later, we are 
told that al-Qaida and the Taliban are rebuilding terrorist training 
camps in northern Pakistan and the region between northern Pakistan and 
Afghanistan. Six years later, we are told that the leadership of al-
Qaida has a secure hideout in Pakistan. Six years later, we are told 
that al-Qaida, with its leadership, remains the greatest terrorist 
threat to our country. All of this after 6 years, two wars in two 
countries, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars 
spent at home and abroad, thousands of American soldiers dead, and tens 
of thousands wounded.
  That is a failure. The fact that those who attacked us on 9/11 have 
not been brought to justice and, in fact, are now planning additional 
attacks against this country and other countries and doing so in secure 
and safe harbors in northern Pakistan, the fact that that exists is a 
failure. We have troops going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of 
a civil war. Yet the leadership of al-Qaida, the greatest terrorist 
threat to this country, is apparently living free in a safe harbor in 
northern Pakistan.
  Let me describe some of the reasons I bring this discussion to the 
floor. This is testimony by John Negroponte, then-Director of National 
Intelligence on January 11, 2007, before the U.S. Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence:

       Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our homeland and 
     other targets with the objective of inflicting mass 
     casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections 
     and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' 
     secure hideout in Pakistan.

  Think of that, 6 years after 9/11, after they engineered the murder 
of innocent Americans, our Director of National Intelligence says the 
leadership of al-Qaida ``continues to plot attacks against our 
homeland'' from their ``secure hideout in Pakistan.''
  Further, the Director of National Intelligence, in the same testimony 
said this:

       Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that poses the 
     greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to the homeland.

  That is from the Director of National Intelligence. Al-Qaida is the 
greatest terrorist threat to our country. He said that in January of 
this year.
  Let me fast forward. The McClatchy newspapers, June 26, 2007. Senior 
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials in this administration 
said:

       While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to 
     al Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, 
     regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary on the border 
     between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
       Al Qaida, its allies in Afghanistan's Taliban movement and 
     Pakistani radicals ``have free rein there now,'' said Marvin 
     Wenibaum, a former State Department intelligence analyst.

  That is last month.
  July 11, ``Officials Worry of Summer Terrorist Attack.''

       . . . Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the 
     editorial board of the Chicago Tribune that he had a ``gut 
     feeling'' about a new period of increased risk.

  The next day, July 12:

       Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-
     Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has 
     established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western 
     Pakistan for training and planning attacks.
       The report, a five-page threat assessment compiled by the 
     National Counterterrorism Center, is titled ``Al-Qaida Better 
     Positioned To Strike the West.''

  We have seen some of this before. Mr. Chertoff says he has a gut 
feeling. The fact is, we have a lot of intelligence-gathering 
capability. Mr. Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security, has a gut 
feeling.
  Let's go back 6 years to August of 2001, from the President's daily 
briefing. I have it in my hand. It was released in 2004. In August of 
2001 the intelligence gave the President a document titled: ``Bin Ladin 
Determined to Strike in US.'' On 9/11, bin Laden and al-Qaida struck 
the U.S. with devastating effect.
  July 2007, secret intelligence assessment from the U.S. National 
Counterterrorism Center:

       Al Qaeda better positioned to strike the west.

  Six years ago, the President's daily briefing said bin Laden was 
determined to strike the United States, and he did. Six years later:

       Al Qaeda better positioned to strike the west.

  So much money spent in lives, in treasury. So much done, so much 
action in Iraq, where US troops, now go door to door in Baghdad. What 
has happened to the leaders of those who continue to plan attacks 
against our country? What has happened to the leaders of the 
organization who our National Intelligence Director says represent the 
greatest terrorist threat to our country? They live free, able to speak 
to the world. Al Zawahiri last week spoke to the world. They live free. 
They are creating new terrorist training camps, and they are talking to 
the world about their plans to inflict damage and to attack other parts 
of the world. That is called failure.
  Let me go back again a few years, September 15, 2001. I will not ever 
forget sitting in the Chamber of the House of Representatives in a 
joint session of Congress when President Bush came to speak. This 
country was one at that point. They weren't Republicans and Democrats. 
This was a country that had been victimized by a devastating attack by 
terrorists who were perfectly content to give their own lives as long 
as they could kill innocent others. The President came and spoke to a 
joint session of Congress. Here is what he said:

       We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, 
     we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and 
     house them.


[[Page S9119]]


  On August 31, 2006, at the American Legion National Convention, the 
President said:

       We have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor 
     terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists. You are 
     an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to 
     account.

  The question most people ask is: What has happened in 6 years that 
those who planned and executed the attacks against this country now 
live free and apparently have reconstituted their strength and are 
planning further attacks against us? We have committed 150,000 or so 
American troops over a long period of time, so far a period of time 
longer than the Second World War lasted, and they are now going door to 
door in Baghdad in a civil war, where Shia are killing Sunnis and 
Sunnis are killing Shia, and they are both killing American troops. 
Sometime, we are going to leave Iraq. That is not the question. The 
question isn't whether. The American people and this Congress are not 
going to allow American soldiers to be in the middle of a civil war in 
Iraq for years ahead. That is not going to be the case. The question 
isn't whether we leave Iraq. The question is when and how.
  But even as we discuss and debate that--and we will this week and 
next week and perhaps the week after--even as we deal with those 
issues, the American people have a right, through this Congress, to ask 
the President: Why is it that those who engineered the attacks are 
still able to engineer and plan further attacks? Why is it that those 
who engineered the attacks of 2001 are still active, are still 
apparently in safe harbors, immune to whatever efforts might or might 
not have existed to bring them to justice? The President was asked 
about this at one point, and the President said: I don't think much 
about Osama bin Laden. Well, he should. We should.
  The amendment we offer is very simple. Six long years later, this 
amendment would require the President every 3 months, every single 
quarter, to send a classified report to this Congress telling us what 
has been done in this administration, what has been done to apprehend 
and bring to justice the leadership of al-Qaida.
  If, in fact, this is the greatest terrorist threat to our country--if 
that is the case--and that does not come from me, that comes from the 
head of intelligence in this country, John Negroponte, in January of 
this year--if that is the case, why isn't this our primary objective 
and our most important objective?
  This amendment says the following: It doubles the reward money for 
the apprehension of Osama bin Laden. It also requires a quarterly 
classified, top secret report to be provided to Congress to tell us 
what is being done to attempt to make this a priority and apprehend the 
leadership of al-Qaida.
  I understand it is much easier to recognize failure than to recognize 
success. I understand that. But it does not take much looking to 
understand this failure.
  Now, Senator Conrad and I have offered this amendment before, and it 
passed the Senate before and then was quietly dropped in conference by 
those who do not want this amendment to survive.
  But it seems to me we ought to as a country understand, if we are 
waking up in the mornings these days and reading, as I read this 
morning in the newspapers--and yesterday morning and the morning 
before--that our Homeland Security Secretary has a ``gut feeling'' 
about this, that or the other thing, and there is a meeting down at the 
White House to assess these increased risks--we need to understand it 
is all about al-Qaida. It is all about the leadership of al-Qaida 
planning additional attacks. It is about the reconstitution of 
terrorist activities in training camps with the Taliban and al-Qaida. 
And--guess what--we are going door to door in Baghdad trying to figure 
out how we deal with the Sunnis and the Shias.
  Yes, there are some al-Qaida in Iraq, but those who tell us that is 
the central fight against terrorism are wrong, and they ought to know 
it. Go have a secret briefing upstairs. I tell you, if you believe that 
is the central fight against terrorism, go have a classified, secret 
briefing, and then you come back and tell me that is what you heard. 
You will not hear that.
  An honest, level look at what is going on in Iraq will describe, 
unfortunately, a civil war in Iraq. Yes, there is some al-Qaida in 
Anbar Province and some other al-Qaida influences, but the principal 
issue in Iraq is sectarian violence or a civil war, and this Congress, 
at some point, is going to tell this President we are not going to keep 
American soldiers in the middle of a civil war for any great length of 
time. But we will insist that we make a priority as one of our 
significant objectives to bring to justice those who murdered thousands 
of Americans on 9-11-2001, and we will insist that those who are now 
planning additional attacks from a secure hideaway--as Mr. Negroponte 
points out, a secure hideaway--we will insist that some effort be made 
in this country to deal with that issue.
  Let me ask one question. I do not want five reasons or three reasons. 
I want somebody to give me one good reason why there ought to be any 
secure hideout anywhere on this Earth for the people, the leaders of 
al-Qaida who committed this atrocious act against this country in 2001 
and who are now planning additional attacks against this country. I do 
not need five reasons. Is there any reason there ought to be a secure 
hideout anywhere on this planet for these people? The answer ought to 
be no.
  Getting the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 has not been our 
objective, in my judgment. We have gotten sidetracked. It has not been 
our objective to make this the central issue, and I believe it ought to 
be the central issue. Senator Conrad believes that. Senator Salazar and 
others believe it. I expect and hope that tomorrow, when we have a vote 
at 9:30 in the morning, the Senate will go on record saying it is 
time--long past the time--for this country to demand that the 
leadership of al-Qaida be brought to justice and that we interrupt the 
opportunity of those to be in a secure hideout in Pakistan, planning 
additional destruction and planning additional deaths against innocent 
Americans in attacks on our homeland.
  That is the amendment. It is simple. No one can misunderstand that 
amendment. No one can misinterpret it. My hope is, at the end of the 
vote tomorrow, the Senate will have expressed itself as forcefully as I 
hope it can on this subject.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment that has 
been offered by Senator Dorgan and I have a second-degree amendment, 
which I will then offer. I also wish to speak about the broader issue 
before us, the Defense authorization bill, but specifically Iraq and an 
amendment I have cosponsored with Senators Salazar and Alexander 
dealing with the Iraq Study Group recommendations.
  First, I rise in support of the amendment by Senator Dorgan. I 
certainly agree with him that it is critical we focus on the threat 
posed by al-Qaida--whether it be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq, or 
the under leadership of al-Zawahiri or Osama bin Laden. That needs to 
be a focus of our intelligence and security efforts, as well as the 
efforts our special forces, because of the threat they pose not just to 
American citizens but to our allies around the world.
  We cannot forget they are committed to the death and destruction of 
innocent civilians around the world. Under no circumstances should we 
allow any secure area, hideout, or haven to be reconstituted or 
recreated in the way it was created in Afghanistan under the Taliban 
rule.
  So I am pleased to support his amendment. No one should underestimate 
the complexity of the challenge of tracking down the leaders of al-
Qaida, wherever they are around the world, but the American people 
should know the greatest effort and the greatest commitment is being 
undertaken to deal with these terrorists.


                Amendment No. 2184 to Amendment No. 2135

  Mr. President, at this time, I would, however, like to offer a 
second-degree

[[Page S9120]]

amendment. In the drafting of Senator Dorgan's amendment, he speaks 
about ``the capture, or information leading to the capture,'' but I 
certainly believe most Americans would agree we should also provide 
support, assistance, and a reward if information leads to the death of 
al-Qaida's leadership.
  To that end, my second-degree amendment would simply amend that line 
to ensure this amendment provides support for the capture or death or 
information leading to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, where 
the $50 million reward is allowed.
  Mr. President, at this time, I send the amendment to the desk. It is 
a second degree to the Dorgan amendment, and I ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2184 to amendment No. 2135.

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike page 2, line 2 and insert in lieu thereof: ``for the 
     capture or death or information leading to the caputure or 
     death of''.

  Mr. SUNUNU. The amendment, as I have described it, is a simple, 
single line that inserts that additional contingency. I think the 
reporting and the assessment of the threats that are included in this 
amendment make sense. Members of Congress along with members of our 
intelligence agencies need the most accurate information available to 
understand what work is being undertaken, what efforts are being made, 
and what progress is in tracking these terrorists. I think that, in 
turn, will help us make much better policy decisions.
  So I am pleased to support the amendment. I hope the Senator from 
North Dakota will accept my second-degree amendment, and I look forward 
to the adoption of this change to the Defense Authorization bill.
  Second, Mr. President, I wish to address the Salazar-Alexander 
amendment that has been filed, which we certainly hope to have a vote 
on next week. This is a piece of legislation that I worked with 
Senators Salazar and Alexander on addressing the recommendations of the 
Iraq Study Group.
  The Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan effort covered extensively in 
the media since the release of their recommendations in December 2006. 
I made the point at the time, 7 months ago, that those 
recommendations--there were over 70 different proposals and 
recommendations in the report--represented the most complete assessment 
that had been made of the situation in Iraq. That it was a 
comprehensive framework, and that it did not just deal with security 
issues but included recommendations addressing political reforms that 
need to take place within the country with the political dynamics of 
Iraq. That it included diplomatic efforts that could make a real 
difference in stabilizing Iraq, supporting the efforts of neighbors and 
other countries in the region, as well as changes that ought to be made 
to our intelligence-gathering operation to support not just our effort 
in Iraq but our effort to deal with al-Qaida in Iraq and around the 
world. This is something that Senator Dorgan spoke about.
  I said at the time that, that framework and those recommendations 
should be embraced and implemented to the greatest extent possible, 
first, because it is a comprehensive effort, and second, because the 
Iraq Study Group proposals recognize the importance and responsibility 
of the Iraqi Government implementing a series of reforms. They include 
economic development, reconciliation, the sharing of oil revenues with 
peoples of all regions and ethnic groups across the country, the 
debaathification process--designed to bring the country closer 
together, to create greater unity among the different ethnic factions 
across Iraq. Only the Iraqi Government, given time, can accomplish 
these goals which are essential to improving the stability within the 
region, reducing the level of violence and creating the environment 
where our troops can be brought home as soon as possible. No American 
soldier should serve in Iraq a day longer than is absolutely necessary.
  This plan is comprehensive in its approach. It recognizes the 
importance and the responsibility of the Iraqi Government to take steps 
to improve the situation, and it places an emphasis on the coalition 
mission, the mission of U.S. forces, in addressing the threat of al-
Qaida, focusing on the counterterrorism mission within the country, and 
training Iraqi security forces.
  This is one of the few and perhaps the only truly broad bipartisan 
effort we have had before us in the last several months. We have seen a 
series of relatively partisan votes dealing with hard withdrawal dates, 
criticizing the Pentagon policy in one area or another. On this 
legislation right now we have seven Democratic sponsors, six or seven 
Republican sponsors, and I think the support we would receive from both 
sides of the aisle is even more dramatic than that. So it is a 
bipartisan effort that attempts to implement or help encourage the 
implementation of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I think 
that provides a very sound and strong framework, not just for improving 
the situation in Iraq but for also addressing a lot of the regional 
problems that are contributing to its stability in the other countries 
in the region.

  I would encourage all of my colleagues to take a hard look at this 
legislation. I don't think anyone would agree with 100 percent of all 
of the recommendations in the Iraq Study Group Report, but I think we 
can recognize that it is the product of a great deal of effort to 
understand the situation, assess the climate in Iraq, and make 
substantive recommendations that will move us forward.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I have submitted an amendment that 
would help tackle an alarming problem with our men and women who serve 
in the Armed Forces, the Heroes Helping Heroes Act.
  I have introduced the Heroes Helping Heroes Act in the Senate this 
year to provide funding for peer support programs so that trained 
veterans can help returning veterans navigate the sometimes perilous 
transition to civilian life.
  My intention is to expand the use of peer-support approaches to 
assist the reintegration of America's veterans as they return from 
active duty to their homes and communities. We hope that this 
legislation will demonstrate the effectiveness of peer-support 
approaches and ease the burden of the social, economic, medical and 
psychological struggles our veterans face.
  Fortunately, ``peer-support'' approaches offer a low cost and 
effective adjunct to traditional services by allowing the heroes of our 
country to help each other. Veteran peer-support offers two things that 
no kind of professionalized service can ever hope to: the support of 
someone who has had the same kinds of experiences and truly understands 
what the veteran is going through; and the potential of a large pool of 
experienced volunteers who can assist and support returning veterans at 
very little cost.
  Last week I held a hearing on the issues surrounding older veterans 
in my home State of Oregon. I also held a series of roundtables in both 
Portland and White City to discuss how we can improve the current 
mental health system, be it through the VA, Department of Defense, or 
within the community mental health structure.
  What we now refer to as post-traumatic stress disorder was once 
described as ``soldier's heart'' in the Civil War, ``shell shock'' in 
World War I, and ``combat fatigue'' in World War II. Whatever the name, 
it is a serious mental illness and deserves the same type of attention 
and care provided for a physical wound.
  In recent reports, we have heard that 20 to 40 servicemen and women 
are evacuated each month from Iraq due to mental health problems. In 
addition to those who are identified, there are many more who will 
return home after their service to face re-adjustment challenges. Some 
will need appropriate mental heath care to help them adjust back to 
``normal'' life. While others will need medical assistance to heal more 
serious PTSD issues. Yet others will need help to mentally cope with 
their physical wounds.
  The effectiveness of these approaches has been documented in a 
variety of

[[Page S9121]]

domains. Specifically, for mental health disorders like PTSD and 
depression, peer-support programs have shown that participation yields 
improvement in psychiatric symptoms and decreased hospitalizations, the 
development of larger social support networks, enhanced self-esteem and 
social functioning, as well as lower services costs. The Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, SAMHSA, and even the 
President's new Freedom Commission on Mental Health, have recognized 
peer-support approaches as an emerging practice that is helping people 
recover from traumatic events.
  So many of our veterans from previous conflicts, such as World War II 
and the Korean and Vietnam Wars, needed similar programs once they 
returned home. Yet I fear that we didn't do enough to help them. With 
proper and early supports systems in place, we can work to prevent the 
more serious and chronic mental health issues that come from a lack of 
intervention.
  As our country faces new waves of veterans with mental health 
illnesses, many of whose issues arise from combat stress, we must 
ensure that we learn from the lessons of the past. We must ensure that 
they are cared for, and we must not leave behind those who fought for 
Nation in previous generations.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the fiscal year 
2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation will provide 
essential resources to our troops as they engage in combat overseas and 
training at home. It also offers an important opportunity at this 
crucial time for continued debate as to our Nation's future presence in 
Iraq. This is the most important challenge facing our country, and I 
will address this issue in subsequent remarks.
  Let me begin by thanking my colleagues, the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin and 
Senator McCain, for their leadership in crafting this bill and for 
their strong commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.
  This legislation includes a strong commitment to strengthen Navy 
shipbuilding by including $13.6 billion for shipbuilding programs. The 
declining size of our Navy fleet is of great concern to me, and this 
legislation is an important step toward reversing that troubling 
decline.
  The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mullen, has proposed a 313-
ship Navy shipbuilding plan that seeks to address longstanding 
congressional concerns that Navy shipbuilding has been inadequately 
funded in recent years. The resulting instability has had a number of 
troubling effects on the shipbuilding industrial base and has 
contributed to significant cost growth in Navy shipbuilding programs. 
The CNO's plan--combined with more robust funding by Congress--will 
begin to reverse the decline in Navy shipbuilding.
  I strongly support the provisions authorizing the funding for 
construction of destroyers for the 21st century, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt 
class destroyers. The DDG-1000 represents a significant advance in Navy 
surface combatant technology. Its capabilities include: superior 
precision naval surface fire support; advanced stealth technologies; 
engineering and technological innovations allowing for a reduced crew 
size; and sophisticated, advanced weapons systems, such as the 
electromagnetic rail gun.
  In addition, it is important to note the tremendous cost savings that 
will be realized over the lifecycle of a DDG-1000 destroyer compared to 
that of a DDG-51 destroyer as a result of various innovations and 
technological advancements.
  It is critical that the construction of the first two DDG-1000 
destroyers in 2007 and 2008 continue as scheduled without further 
delays. The dedicated and highly skilled workers at our Nation's 
surface combatant shipyards, such as Bath Iron Works in my home State 
of Maine, are simply too valuable to jeopardize with further 
contracting delays.
  That is why I am concerned that the House version of this bill 
includes a provision to prohibit the start of construction on lead 
ships until the Secretary of Navy certifies that detailed design is 
complete. This provision, if enacted, could further delay the Navy's 
awarding of the construction contract for the first two DDG-1000 
destroyers.
  The House version would also require that the next-generation class 
of Navy cruisers, which will be the follow-on to the DDG-1000 
destroyer, be powered by nuclear propulsion systems, even though 
neither of the U.S. Navy's proven surface combatant shipyards, Bath 
Iron Works and Ingalls Shipyard, has the facilities or certifications 
required to construct nuclear-powered surface combatant ships. This 
provision could dramatically increase the costs of future surface 
combatants, thereby reducing the overall number of ships built at a 
time when the Navy is seeking to revitalize and modernize its fleet.
  Of further concern is the fact that the Senate version of this 
legislation, as drafted initially, eliminated all funding for the 
Littoral Combat Ship Program for fiscal year 2008, despite the fact 
that this ship is an integral part of the CNO's 313-ship plan. 
Fortunately, I was able to work with my colleagues on the Armed 
Services Committee during the mark up of this legislation to restore 
$480 million to ensure continued development of this important program.
  I am pleased that the Senate Armed Services Committee also agreed to 
my request for $50 million in funding to continue the modernization 
program for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. This program 
provides significant savings to the Navy by applying some of the 
technology that is being developed for the DDG-1000 destroyer and 
backfitting the DDG-51, which may reduce the crew size by 30 to 40 
people.
  The Senate's fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill also includes 
funding for other defense-related projects that benefit Maine and our 
national security. Funding is provided for machine guns and grenade 
launchers, both of which are manufactured by the highly skilled workers 
at Saco Defense in Saco, ME.
  All of the Senate Armed Services Committee members are concerned 
about improving the protection of our troops in harm's way. As such, 
this bill includes $4 billion above the President's budget request for 
accelerated procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, 
vehicles for the Armed Forces and $4.5 billion for the Joint Improvised 
Explosive Defeat Organization.
  In addition, the legislation provides $5 million to the University of 
Maine's Army Center of Excellence for the production and demonstration 
of lightweight modular ballistic tent insert panels. The panels provide 
crucial protection to servicemembers in temporary dining and housing 
facilities in mobile forward-operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The legislation also provides $6.9 million for the Maine Army 
National Guard to field the Integrated Disaster Management System, 
developed by Global Relief Technologies in Kennebunk and Portsmouth, in 
support of critical medivac operations in Iraq. This system provides 
near real-time data management and analysis to and from field operators 
via state-of-the-art, hand-held devices.
  The bill also authorizes $9.7 million for construction of a 
Consolidated Emergency Control Center at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. 
This facility will consolidate all of the shipyard's emergency response 
entities into one centralized location, which will provide a 
comprehensive communications and response capability in the event of an 
emergency.
  Finally, I am pleased that this bipartisan Defense bill also 
authorizes a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay increase for 
servicemembers, half a percent above the President's budget request. 
This bill provides the necessary resources to our troops and our Nation 
and recognizes the enormous contributions made by the State of Maine. 
The bill provides the necessary funding for our troops, and I offer it 
my full support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 30 
minutes to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9122]]

  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Senator Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1783 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, is there a preestablished time limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will speak roughly, if any Members are interested, 15 
minutes or so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in October 2006, the North Korean regime 
of Kim Jong Il culminated years of provocative military action by 
conducting a nuclear test. In the years preceding that test, North 
Korea expelled international inspectors, restarted nuclear facilities, 
and reinvigorated its plutonium production program, this, following the 
pledge by North Korea, under the agreed framework in 1994, to freeze 
and dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for our 
assistance.
  I am glad that following this test in 2006, the international 
community joined the United States in condemning that test, and the 
United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring North 
Korea to halt their nuclear tests and dismantle their nuclear weapons 
program.
  In February of this year, our State Department negotiators and Bush 
administration officials heralded a breakthrough agreement with North 
Korea. On February 13, the six-party negotiators, including the 
countries of the United States, Russia, South Korea, Japan, China, and 
North Korea, concluded an agreement to end North Korea's nuclear 
programs.
  President Bush stated he was ``pleased with the agreement reached'' 
by the six-party talks. He acknowledged that under the agreement, North 
Korea committed to take several specific actions by a 60-day deadline, 
and President Bush made clear that the cooperation on economic, 
humanitarian, and energy assistance to North Korea would be provided 
``as the North carries out its commitments to disable its nuclear 
facilities.'' In other words, there was going to be a step-by-step 
process by which they disabled their nuclear facilities, that they 
would then get economic, humanitarian, and energy assistance in North 
Korea.
  Pursuant to the February 13 deal, North Korea was required to take a 
series of actions within 60 days. This included a freeze of its nuclear 
installations at Yongbyon, including shutting down a nuclear reactor 
and plutonium processing plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency 
in Vienna was to be allowed to monitor the freeze at Yongbyon. To no 
one's surprise, that 60-day deadline that was negotiated passed with no 
action by the North Koreans. The Yongbyon facility was not shut down. 
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors were not admitted, 
reminiscent of the pussyfooting with North Korea that went on during 
the 1990s.
  Rather than comply with their commitments under the agreement--then 
we know what North Korea did, something that was not even negotiated--
North Korea proceeded to demand the release of assets frozen at the 
Macau-based Banco Delta Asia.
  The approximately $25 million was frozen by the United States 
Treasury Department in 2005 once it was discovered that these funds 
came from a range of fraudulent and illegal activities by the North 
Koreans; simply stated, counterfeiting of U.S. currency and money 
laundering.
  So what was our response to the North Korean demand? Did we refuse to 
negotiate the BDA funds until North Korea demonstrated their commitment 
to follow through on their obligations? I am sorry to say the answer is 
no. We allowed them to pussyfoot around, as they have done so often.
  Our team of negotiators began working on a way to yield to Kim Jong 
Il's demands, once again accepting their pussyfooting.
  Keep in mind, under the terms of the February 13 agreement, North 
Korea had the unambiguous responsibility to take the first step, which 
North Korea did not do. In addition, the BDA frozen funds were not 
stated in or a part of that February 13 agreement. So how do we get to 
the point of responding to their pussyfooting that they demand 
something that is not in an agreement that was already agreed to? What 
good are agreements? Not only had the North Koreans not followed 
through on their commitment by the 60-day deadline, they were now 
reopening the agreement by demanding the release of these frozen funds.
  So rather than force North Korea to fulfill its commitments, our 
negotiators were looking for ways to respond to their pussyfooting, 
their unwillingness to act, and then work to get those frozen funds 
unfrozen.
  Here again Uncle Sam becomes Uncle Sucker for some tinhorn dictator. 
And we wonder why we are not respected around the world.
  In June, after weeks of back and forth between the State Department 
and Pyongyang, the funds were unfrozen and our own Federal Reserve 
System was called in to transfer the funds. How illicit these funds 
were in the first place is the fact that they went to banks all over 
the world to try to transfer them. They even went to Russia, and Russia 
would not touch it. But once again Uncle Sam is Uncle Sucker and our 
Federal Reserve System was willing to pass on that tainted money.

  Before North Korea showed even an inkling of followthrough on their 
obligations, we conceded on an issue that wasn't even a part of the 
agreement that they were supposed to start dismantling their nuclear 
program. So it begs the question of whether the BDA funds were part of 
a side deal that our State Department negotiators had chosen to agree 
to but not include in that formal agreement.
  In addition, in pushing the BDA issue as a precondition for 
implementing the initial phase of the six-party agreement, Kim Jong Il 
had succeeded in rendering the timelines of the agreement useless. In 
other words, what was supposed to happen in 60 days after the February 
13 agreement did not happen in 60 days, and more pussyfooting by Kim 
Jong Il, as we saw in the 1990s and we are seeing again now. Do we ever 
learn a lesson?
  In addition to pushing the BDA issue as a precondition of 
implementing the initial phase of the agreement, he had in fact pulled 
one over on the United States. These deadlines, starting February 13, 
were touted by the six-party negotiators as evidence that North Korea 
would finally comply with the demands to give up its nuclear program 
and that they would be held accountable to strict deadlines. Neither of 
these things happened, and people in North Korea are laughing at Uncle 
Sucker again.
  In recent days and weeks, North Korea has begun to signal that they 
will take concrete steps to shut down and seal the Yongbyon facility 
and accede to verification and monitoring procedures of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency. Assistant Secretary of State 
Christopher Hill recently visited North Korea and described his 
positive discussions with the North Koreans and their intentions to 
fulfill their obligations.
  I wonder if he bothered to discuss with them why they didn't keep 
their word. Is their word worth anything? I mean, after all, you have 
an agreement. Can you trust people who sign a name to a document?
  It is difficult to understand the positive reaction to the signals 
now being sent by North Korea 3 months after they were required. In 
other words, in 60 days things would start to happen. Nothing happened 
until 3 months after the 60 days. Nonetheless, the International Atomic 
Energy Agency has, in recent days, determined the scope of its 
inspection regime and is expected to be back in North Korea within 
weeks.
  But once again, there is no target date for shutting down the 
Yongbyon facility. It appears that all we are getting from North 
Korea's leadership is the same old footdragging--pussyfooting around. 
And while the North Koreans have said they intend to shut down and seal 
the Yongbyon facility in the near future, do you know what they are 
doing now? They are putting more demands on us ahead of time. They are 
now tying those actions to the delivery of heavy oil.
  Now, this bears repeating, because, here again, we have more 
pussyfooting.

[[Page S9123]]

Before shutting and sealing the nuclear facility at Yongbyon, North 
Korea is demanding the delivery of heavy oil, and even other 
assistance, without any significant action on their part. Mr. 
President, to use a quote from baseball's great Yogi Berra, it's deja 
vu all over again.
  My great concern is that North Korea is in the process of exploiting, 
time and again, our willingness to concede to their demands for 
assistance, regardless of whether they ever actually comply with their 
commitments of the February agreement in the first place. In other 
words, if they can sucker us again, they want to sucker us for all they 
can get out of us.
  I understand the angst of North Korea with allowing the International 
Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in and the freezing of the Yongbyon 
facility, but these steps are rather small compared to the future 
requirements. If Kim Jong Il ever complies with the first phase of this 
agreement, the next phase will require them to make a complete 
declaration of all nuclear programs, including their uranium enrichment 
activities.
  It also requires the complete disablement of all nuclear facilities. 
Keep in mind, no timetables, no deadlines have been agreed to for the 
implementation of this phase. It is during those future steps, when the 
real heavy lifting will be required, that we will see the true nature 
of Kim Jong Il.
  I haven't seen any change, and I don't expect a lot of change, but I 
expect the United States to just continue to be suckered and suckered 
and suckered. And if Kim Jong Il has no intention of giving us his 
nuclear weapons program, which many believe, it will be crystal clear 
at that point when real commitments come due.
  I am afraid we will likely see more of the same patient back and 
forth, so-called confidence building--those are words our people use--
that our negotiators seem so compelled to pursue. It seems that nothing 
has been learned during the process with North Korea. Have the 
diplomats at Foggy Bottom not learned anything from the mistakes made 
by this administration now, by the Clinton administration previously?
  Have we learned nothing from Kim Jong Il's perpetual tactics of 
agreeing to terms, only to demand then further concessions, as though 
written agreements mean nothing? We have been down this road before. 
When are we going to recognize we are being made a sucker, much the 
same way President Clinton was played along with? When will we say to 
Pyongyang that enough is enough? When will this Bush administration 
stand its ground?
  I support the international effort towards a diplomatic solution on 
this matter, but I also think it is imperative we learn from past 
mistakes. I was deeply skeptical of North Korea's willingness to follow 
through on the 1994 Agreed Framework, and I am deeply skeptical they 
will follow through on the February 13 agreement.
  If Pyongyang continues to demand assistance without complying with 
the terms of the February 13 agreement, I hope the President--the 
present chief executive, President Bush--will quickly realize the deja 
vu tactics of Kim Jong Il and put an end to the policies of concessions 
without compliance. If not, President Bush will have done nothing more 
to address North Korea's nuclear problems than President Clinton.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                            Trade With China

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the senior 
Senator from Iowa and his terrific work on North Korea and what we need 
to do, and I thank him for that.
  Today, new trade figures were released by the Department of Commerce. 
The news continues to be bad, as our trade policy continues on its 
merry way. We saw the numbers--$20 billion trade deficit in May, the 
most recent number they released--$20 billion, leaving us for the year, 
at this point, a $96 billion trade deficit with China. That is a 15-
percent increase over last year. That means we are buying $96 billion 
more from China than we are selling to China, and that is just through 
the first 5 months of 2007.
  To understand a billion dollars, which is pretty hard to do, if you 
had a billion dollars and you spent a dollar every second of every 
minute, of every hour, of every day, it would take 31 years to spend $1 
billion. The pages who sit in this Chamber, Mr. President, have lived 
about a half billion seconds. They are a little older than half of 31 
but not much. So our trade deficit with China, so far this year, up 
through the first 5 months since January 1, is $96 billion.
  Our trade deficit with the whole world, just in the month of May, was 
$66 billion. President Bush the first said a trade deficit of a billion 
dollars translates into 13,000--mostly manufacturing jobs--13,000 jobs 
for a $1 billion trade deficit. You can do the math and see what this 
continued persistent insidious trade deficit is doing to our economy.
  Those are just numbers. Last week, in my State of Ohio, just to put 
faces with those numbers, I was in the town of Lima, the town of 
Mansfield, where I grew up--my mother had her 87th birthday--I was in 
Lorain and Marion and Zanesville. Each of those are medium-sized cities 
of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000, and 60,000 people. Each of those cities 
contributed so much to the muscle of this country, to our war effort in 
World War II, to the building of a middle class, and to doing all that 
industrial America has done, and in each of those communities--Lima, 
Zanesville, Mansfield, Lorain, and Marion--and I could add Springfield, 
Xenia, Findlay, Ravenna and Ashtabula--my wife's hometown--I could add 
all those cities, and in too many cases the growth in this economy that 
the President trumpets when he comes to Cleveland--a more prosperous 
area--the President trumpets this economic growth, an economic growth 
that is passing by too many of these communities.
  When I grew up in Mansfield, we had the international headquarters of 
Tappan-Stowe, Westinghouse, General Motors, and we had a Mansfield Tire 
Company, and the corporate headquarters of Ohio Grass, and tens of 
thousands of industrial manufacturing jobs. Today, of those companies I 
mentioned, only General Motors is still there.
  Mr. President, we know what that kind of job loss does to communities 
when a company closes and lays off 2,000 people to move to Mexico, to 
China, or whatever happens. When 2,000 people lose their jobs, or 200 
people lose their jobs, we know what that does to the community and to 
the families and to those individuals. We also know it means layoffs 
for teachers, police officers, firefighters, and that the community is 
less safe, less prosperous, and there is less opportunity for young 
people in those communities to go to school and get a good education in 
hopes of achieving the American dream.
  The President's answer to this--and I don't put all of this decline 
in manufacturing, where my State of Ohio has lost literally hundreds of 
thousands of jobs, onto the Bush administration. I don't put all of 
this at the President's feet nor at the feet of failed trade policy, 
but clearly NAFTA, PNTR with China, the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement, trade agreements that are now on the table, all of these 
clearly have contributed to the decline of manufacturing in a big, big 
way.
  So what is the President's answer? We had NAFTA, we had PNTR, we had 
CAFTA, and so the President's answer is let's do four more trade 
agreements. Let's do a trade agreement with Panama, let's do a trade 
agreement with Peru, let's do a trade agreement with Colombia, and 
let's do a trade agreement with South Korea. Again and again it is the 
same NAFTA failed model.
  This time the President said it is going to be better because we are 
going to include labor and environmental standards in Peru and in 
Panama.
  First, if that is the case, why today, literally this week, were 
workers in Peru demonstrating on the streets? Because they think these 
trade agreements are bad for workers in their country too. The fact is, 
these trade agreements might be good for some investors short term but 
they are never good for the workers in Peru, they are not good for 
workers in Panama, they are not good for the workers in the United 
States, and they are not good for our communities or families.
  The President says: Well, this trade agreement is different because 
we have labor and environmental standards

[[Page S9124]]

that are going to be negotiated alongside them. But the fact is that is 
what they said about NAFTA. They passed labor and environmental 
standards in a side agreement and it did nothing to raise the labor and 
environmental standards in NAFTA, but it did turn a trade surplus that 
we had with Mexico in 1993 into a trade deficit into the tens of 
billions of dollars. We know that.
  We also know what happened when we signed a trade agreement with 
Jordan--one I voted for when I was in the House of Representatives--a 
trade agreement that had solid labor and environmental standards in the 
middle of the agreement, at the core of the agreement. We also know 
that happened in 2000.
  In 2001, when President Bush took office, his trade representative, 
Robert Zoellick, wrote a letter to the Jordanian Government saying we 
were not going to use the dispute resolution and not going to actually 
enforce the labor and environmental standards. What has happened? 
Jordan is now a sweatshop with a whole lot of Bangladeshi workers 
exporting textiles and apparel all over the world and has undercut all 
that trade agreement has been. It has undercut all that trade agreement 
should have been. So when I hear the President say we are going to do a 
trade agreement with Peru and Panama and South Korea and Colombia, it 
is the same old story. The trade policy is not working. We need 
something different.

  We need to go back and relook at NAFTA, relook at PNTR, relook at 
CAFTA. We also need a trade policy that will have strong labor and 
environmental standards and strong food safety standards. Look at what 
has happened with China in the last few weeks. Look at the news stories 
about China--contaminants or worse in toothpaste and dog food, 
defective consumer toys for children. We are exposing American 
children, American families, Americans generally to the products coming 
from a country with no regulation, with no health and environmental 
standards, with no consumer product safety standards--none of those. 
Yet our market is wide open for them to sell into this country and just 
end run all the protections we have built to raise our standard of 
living and to protect our families and our children.
  As Senator Dorgan said, we also need trade agreements with benchmarks 
to allow us to gauge whether these serve the national interest. We 
should have objectives of opening markets and creating jobs ensuring 
these benchmarks, so each year we have a report card whether this trade 
deal is actually helping us export or is this actually exporting jobs. 
Is this trade deal helping American workers bring their wages up or are 
these trade agreements pulling wages down? Are they helping to build a 
middle class or are they, like they have in the past, taking them piece 
by piece and pulling apart the middle class in this country?
  We know what we need to do. We know, unfortunately, what the Bush 
administration wants to do on trade policy. Now is the time to start by 
rejecting these trade agreements the administration continues to push 
down our throats.
  At the same time, when we pass trade agreements that work for workers 
and work for the middle class in this country and work for poorest 
workers in the developing world, we also need a manufacturing policy in 
our country. We need a tax system that rewards work, a tax system that 
encourages production in this country, the enlargement of the 
manufacturing extension partnership Senator Kohl from Wisconsin so 
eloquently spoke about, and we need a real alternative energy policy in 
this country, one that really will mean more manufacturing of wind 
turbines--the University of Toledo does some of the best wind research 
in the country--and of solar panels. My State has a variety, a whole 
bunch of manufacturing capabilities. There is simply no reason we can't 
help to turn my State into a Silicon Valley of alternative energy.
  It is an opportunity whose time has come. It is an opportunity for 
us, as a Senate and a House, and for Governor Strickland in Ohio and 
Lieutenant Governor Fisher and all of us to work together, not just to 
change the direction of trade policy or change our tax system to help 
the middle class and help American workers but to embark on an 
alternative energy policy that will help stabilize energy prices, that 
will help wean us off Middle Eastern oil, and ultimately will help 
produce good-paying industrial jobs in our State.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 2184 to Amendment No. 2135

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Sununu second-
degree amendment, No. 2184? If not, without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2184) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________