Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to respond because my friend, as usual, gets to the crux of the issue. Here is the way I look at it. I will try to break these things out. My friend Senator Lugar, whom I think is the most informed man in the Congress on foreign policy, is used to my colloquial ways of expressing things so he will probably understand me better than most because he had to deal with me for 30 years-plus. I try to devolve this, to use a Washington word, into sort of big chunks. You basically have two options here. No. 1, do you continue with a policy that was well intended by our Government, the President, the administration, of attempting to establish a strong central democratic government in Baghdad that in fact has the capacity to gain the faith and trust of the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds so that they will entrust to that central government their well-being, in terms of security, in terms of economic growth, and in terms of political reconciliation or do you have to reach a point that I have reached, and reached some time ago, of recognizing that is a bridge too far; that the only way in which you will be able to stop the warring factions from killing each other is essentially give them some breathing room under their federal Constitution which says--I am quoting from their Constitution: The Republic of Iraq is a single, independent, federal state. What I look back to, I say to my friend from Virginia, is this can't be built up from the village up. I acknowledge the requirement that the leaders of the Sunnis and the Shia and the Kurds--and there are multiple claimants to that leadership; I know my friend knows that-- those claimants have to conclude their self-interest is better realized in a federal system. The Kurds have clearly recognized that. The Kurds made it clear when Senator Hagel and I got smuggled into Irbil, back before the war began, that they weren't in on any deal that wasn't a federal system giving them pretty significant autonomy. The Shia have now reached that conclusion themselves, with notable exceptions--Sadr being one of them. But, for example, the Vice President--the Shia Vice President of the, for lack of a phrase I will call the central government the existing government--is totally supportive of what I am proposing and he said so publicly and said so at this conference in Ramadi which I attended a few weeks ago. The Sunnis up to now have been the odd folks out because they look at it, as my friend clearly knows, and they say: Look, we live in this place called Anbar Province, the majority of us. We don't have much out here but rock and shale. There is not much else out here. All the oil is in the north and all the oil is in the south and if you have regional governments and the oil is controlled by the north and the south, we don't get anything. But here is what has happened. There is a bit of, as we Catholics say, an epiphany occurring. I will tell my friend in confidence who it is but I don't want to publicly--he is an Iraqi leader who is one of the leading Sunni leaders in the country, who used the following quote with me in the 4 hours we were together in Ramadi. He said--I am paraphrasing the first part--I initially disagreed with your plan. Now I am quoting. There has been a struggle I have had between my heart and my head. My heart has told me up to now that we Sunnis could play a major role in governing this country again, from the center. My head tells me that will not happen anytime soon and our fate lies in a regional system. But we need access to resources. He said: But don't quote me yet, Senator, because I have to work on my fellow tribal leaders out here, and others. Look what is happening with the Turks. The Turks initially were absolutely opposed to this. But as they have begun to figure it out, they realize that if we continue on the path we are on, American patience with keeping the cork in the bottle is not going to be sustained for the next 2 years and that when we leave, absent a political settlement, there will be not a splitting of Iraq into three parts, there will be a fracture of Iraq into multiple parts. But guess what they figured out. Kurdistan will become a de facto independent country. They will be able to say in Kurdistan: Hey, we didn't do this. There was nobody to deal with. And they have all of a sudden begun to understand that it is bad enough, from the Turkish standpoint to have a quasi-independent--and it is not even that--region called Kurdistan, within defined borders of a country called Iraq; it is a very different thing to have a quasi-independent Kurdistan, when you have 4 million Kurds sitting in their eastern mountains. So all of a sudden they are figuring this out. ``Figuring out'' sounds derogatory, and I do not mean it that way. They are looking at their alternatives and saying: OK, a federal system in an Iraq that is united is a whole lot better than a de facto independent state. The Iranians. The Iranians have a dilemma. The Iranians have at least five major militia forces among the Shia of Iraq. Some they like, some they do not like. As my friend from Indiana knows, you have a group down around Basra, as the British are pulling out, who are organized pretty well. As the British two-star said to me: They are like Mafia dons waiting for us to leave to see who claims the territory--who actually argued that Basra should be an independent country because they have access to the gulf, they have oil, and they have four provinces they can put together. Well, guess what. That is not very well regarded by the Badr Brigade, folks, and Sadr is going: Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. So this creates a dilemma. The splintering of Iraq creates a dilemma for even the Iranians who do not want to do us any favors at all. The generic point I am making is, as time has passed, and I will use Bosnia as an example, when we first started off talking about what, in essence, became of the Dayton Peace Accords, you did not have any takers. And it only got to the point where you had the Croats and the Serbs concluding they could not dominate. They could not control Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is when they all began to think, you know, the blood and treasure that was--exceedingly what has happened, once they got to the point where they realized the gun was not going to get their solution, they became, very reluctantly, but they became much more acclimated to the notion of what the Dayton Peace Accords did. The bottom line is, asking me that question a year ago, I would not have said to you that internally the leaders among the Shia, the Kurds, and the Sunnis will be more inclined to accept this, but they are because reality has set in. The Kurds have figured out they cannot and do not want to be totally independent because the Turks will take them out. The Shia have figured out, generically, the leadership, that they may have 62 percent of the population or thereabouts and control the political apparatus, but they cannot stop their mosques from being blown up. They cannot physically control the country. And the Sunnis have figured out that they are not going to run the country again in the near term. So it is a little bit like coming face to face with the reality of one circumstance. As I said at the outset to my friend, a lot of this relates to people arriving at this conclusion, even in Iraq, by default. The Sunnis would much rather dominate the country again. The Shia would much rather keep the Sunnis out, as Maliki in his heart would like to do, but he cannot because he cannot control them. The Kurds would love to be independent totally but for the fact that they understand it may be their very demise. So reality is sinking in. The larger point, I say to my friend from Virginia is this: The dilemma I hear, and I hear it from my Democratic colleagues, I imagine I will hear it from some of my Republican colleagues, and it is legitimate. They say: Biden, we cannot force a political solution any more than we can force a military solution. Well, I would argue that it is true we have lost our credibility to be able to do what I believe we could have done 5 years ago or 4 years ago. But that is why part of this amendment calls for internationalizing the political solution. I know my friend from Indiana believes, whether it is the same objective, that there is an overwhelming necessity to engage major powers in the world, to engage regional powers so that, as he says, there are fora; every single day they are sitting down rubbing shoulders trying to figure out an accommodation. It cannot be done in the abstract. It cannot be done by President Lugar sitting in the White House dealing with Maliki sitting in Baghdad. It cannot be done by bringing in the regional players in Sharm El Sheikh, with us convening it and thinking that will get it done. It requires something heavier, deeper, more substantial because one of the things that will get people's attention, that will get the attention of the Sunni leaders and Shia leaders and Kurdish leaders, the international community led by the major five powers, is if the Security Council says: Hey, look, we are gathering up the team--Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et cetera, et cetera--and here is what we think your constitution says, and this is what we are prepared to support. What that does, that not only has implied sticks, it has significant carrots. Significant carrots. That organizational structure can say: We, from the outset, will be the guarantors that none of the regional powers will conclude they must be involved militarily or in a disruptive fashion because the truth is, what I try to do is think of myself as, OK, I am a real bad guy, Iranian leader who hates the United States. What benefits me the most? What benefits me the most is occupying 10 of our 12 divisions in Iraq posing no threat to them, seeing American blood and treasure spilled. But what I do not want to see is America, notwithstanding all of the bravado of Ahmadinejad, that: We will fill the vacuum; we, the Iranians, will fill the vacuum. That is not a vacuum they are looking to fill. If they could fill it, they would. But their ability to fill that vacuum is marginal at best. Their influence is degraded when there is continuing sectarian violence. It diminishes in the context of an international settlement. So the truth is, it requires the national leadership to agree on a regional solution. A national leadership will be unable, in the lifetime of any one of us on this floor, to agree to a central solution; a unity government from the capital city of Baghdad, having military and police authority over the entire country. Can anyone imagine the possibility, even the possibility, that you will see a Shia-dominated police force patrolling in Fallujah? As the old joke goes, raise your hand if there is a remote possibility of that. Already you cannot send into what is now Kurdistan, three governments, you are not even allowed to fly the Iraqi flag without permission. You cannot send the Iraqi Army there without their permission. You cannot send any national police force there without their permission. So what makes us think there is anything--let me make an analogy for you. When Washington accepted the surrender documents signed by Cornwallis at the end of our Revolutionary War, I say to my friends from Virginia and Massachusetts, what chance do you think there would have been if we had to vote within 6 months on the Constitution that was ratified in Philadelphia? Do you think Massachusetts and Virginia would be in the same country? I respectfully suggest, from a historical standpoint, you would not be. So what did we do? We did what I am proposing. You essentially set up Articles of Confederation. You said: We are going to let Massachusetts and Delaware, the first State, Massachusetts, and Delaware and New Jersey and Virginia, have considerable autonomy. There was no President. There was a Continental Congress, a decentralized federal system. It took us 13 years to get to our Philadelphia moment. Wherein does the arrogance emanate from that we think by putting 160,000 troops in Iraq, we can, over a 4-year period, in a country that was made by the stroke of a diplomat's pen, where France and Britain divided up the spoils of the Ottoman Empire, what makes us think that we can expect them to do something that we were unable to do? So, folks, this is pretty basic stuff. I know everybody knows that. I am beginning to sound like I am lecturing. I do not mean to do that. This is pretty simplistic in a sense; it is not rocket science.

Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend: Ask. Let me give you an example. I will be concrete. It is like pushing an open door. I asked for a meeting, I say to my friend, in the tradition of Senator Lugar when he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I asked for a meeting, a private meeting with the Permanent Five of the Security Council, who, as my good friend knows, is: China, Russia, England, France, and the United States. All five of those Ambassadors, including our own, Khalilzad, agreed to meet with me and two other members of the Foreign Relations Committee privately 5 weeks ago--on Monday I think it was 5 weeks ago. We sat in a conference room overlooking the East River for about an hour and a half. I asked the question to all five, including our Ambassador. I said: What would you do, gentlemen--one lady; the British Ambassador is a woman. I said: What would you do, gentleman and lady, if the President of the United States asked each of your countries to participate in convening an international conference on Iraq? One of the Ambassadors--since this was a private meeting I will not name him--said: Senator, I would ask your President: What took you so long to ask? Then I can refer to the French Ambassador. The French Ambassador pointed out that there is an inevitability of us leaving. And if, in fact, we leave a shattered Iraq, his country is in trouble. Remember, last August we were reading about automobiles being torched from Marseilles to Normandy. Why? Over head scarves. Between 10 and 14 percent of the French population is Muslim. The last thing the French need is a radicalized, cannibalized Iraq. It went on from there. My point is, the President--I promise you--has not asked. He has not asked. I think my friend from Indiana knows, at least indirectly-- because Ambassador Khalilzad, I believe, spoke to him; he was there with me--there is a consensus among many in the administration to ask, but there is still this overwhelming reluctance that we don't need anybody's help; we can do it. Let me tell you, that is a vanity which is a burden, a significant burden. There are three things we should be doing immediately. And I know we have a disagreement on this, in my view, redefining the mission of Americans who are there being killed and wounded. We are not going to settle this civil war by remaining on the faultlines. It is not going to happen. Even to totally quell it, you know--as a military expert, I defer to you--we don't have enough troops with the surge. If you have 500,000 troops, you could sit on the faultlines. It wouldn't solve the problem, but you could send it underground. But we don't. I wouldn't even advise it if we did because there is no underlying political rationale. My point is, redefine the mission. Were I President today, which is a presumptuous thing to say, I would be doing exactly what General Jones recommended. I would be pulling back to the borders. I would be dealing with force protection. I would be focusing on al-Qaida of Mesopotamia. I would be focusing on training Iraqi forces. I would not be focused on going door to door in Sunni or Shia neighborhoods in a city of 6.2 million people. I would not have an American convoy traveling the streets with roadside bombs being blown up. The second thing we need to do, but it is not required to support this amendment, there is an incentive to the world, to the region, and to the recalcitrant leadership in Baghdad to say: Hey guys, we are drawing down. For the mission I just stated--and I defer to my friend-- you don't need 160,000 troops for the Jones mission, for lack of a better way of phrasing. You need closer to 50,000. Guess what. That is going to get the attention, as my friend Carl Levin has been saying for some time, of the Iraqis. They may have their altar call. I am not counting on it, but they may. The third thing we should be doing is, if you look at the David Ignatius piece in the Post today, what Senator Lugar and I and others and maybe my friend from Virginia have been talking about for 4 years-- we talked about it before we went in. Who is talking to the tribal chiefs? Who is talking to the local folks? Who is engaging them? What are we finding out now? Just read the Ignatius piece. All of a sudden, it is like, my goodness, maybe we should be talking to these guys. So here is the deal. When you get to this, you say: Look, here is what your Constitution says, and here is what you voted on in your Parliament to implement articles 15, 16, 17 and 18, which allows you to become a region, essentially a state like the United States. Write your own Constitution. It can't supersede the federal one. Allow you to own your local security. Why is it working in Anbar to the extent it is? It is working because we said: Look, we promise you, tribal leaders, nobody is going to send anyone from Baghdad for you. There ain't going to be any Kurds or Sunnis in here. You set up your own police force. Cut through all the diplomatic jargon. That is what we did. That is it. Guess what. Once we did that, the tribal sheiks whistled and said: Boys, you can join. They had 10,000 people show up who wanted to be cops or police. Why? Because Sunnis were going to be guarding Sunnis. So this stuff about political movement is a joke. Not a joke--that is the wrong way to say it. It is a fiction. There is nothing unity about that. I sat next to Abdul Sattar for 2 hours, the guy who got blown up last Thursday, the tribal sheikh who led the insurrection against al-Qaida Mesopotamia, told me how safe everything was in Ramadi. They land me and my staff and the Senator from Arkansas in a Blackhawk helicopter with two Cobra gunships. We go inside the city. We are told how safe it is. I can walk down the street; that is true. We have a sandstorm. I say: No helicopters coming. Can you drive to Baghdad? No, no, no. It ain't that safe. Then 7 days later I get a call from a reporter from the Washington Post: Senator, didn't you spend a lot of time with the same tribal chief the President was with at the airbase? I said: Yes. In this safe city that he runs, with an American tank sitting in front of his house, with bodyguards, he got blown to smithereens. The generic point I am making here is the idea that somehow we are going to be able to negotiate these faultlines is beyond our ability. But it is possible, working with Sunni, Shia, Kurd, we may be able to augment their physical security as they make this transition. What did we do in Dayton? It is not precisely analogous, but it is analogous. There was more sectarian violence from Vlad the Impaler to Milosevic than in 5,000 years of history of what we now call Iraq. That is a fact. That is a historical fact. What did we do? As my friend from Indiana knows, I was deeply involved in pressuring President Clinton from 1993 on to take action in the Balkans. What did we finally do in Dayton in a bipartisan way? We called in Russia, the European powers. We then brought in the Serbs, Milosevic, the Croats, Tudjman--who, as my friend knows, was no box of chocolates--and Izetbegovic. We got them all in one room. We essentially locked the door. We said: Figure it out, folks. What did they figure out? Separate the parties. Even I was a little concerned about the Republika Srpska within Bosnia. What did we do? We said: Your militia can now become your police force. That is, in essence, what we did. We said to the Croats and the Bosnians, who were Muslims: You have to coexist in this other place. This place called Sarajevo is going to be a capital city, but it ain't going to govern the whole country in the way in which the capital of Washington, DC, has influence over the rest of America. Guess what. To truncate this, the West has had an average of roughly 20,000 troops there for 10 years. What has been the result? Knock on wood--not one has been killed, not one has been shot dead. The ethnic cleansing has stopped. What are they doing now? Attempting to amend their Constitution to become part of Europe. I asked my staff to go back. I said: Tell me how the repatriation is going on. People are returning. Of the 2.2 million refugees in Bosnia, internal or external, 1.1 million have returned to their homes. Almost half a million have returned as minority returns, Serbs moving back into predominantly Croat neighborhoods, Croats moving back into predominantly Bosniak or Serb neighborhoods. It is painful. It takes time. But what did we do? We got them all in a room, figuratively speaking. We have to get them in a room, Senator Lugar. We have to get them in a room. Because let me tell you something, some in the administration privately say to me: Joe, you are right. There is an inevitability to a federal system. The difference between an inevitability and us being the catalyst to bring it about may be years. That is thousands of deaths, maybe tens of thousands, counting Iraqis and American. We don't have that time. And look, I don't want to criticize the President. I don't. God love him, I don't care whether he gets credit or blame at this point. But let me tell you one thing for certain: What Presidential leadership is about is a change in the dynamic of situations that are admittedly out of control. It requires taking risks. Thus far, the only risk we have taken is the lives of our troops. We have taken virtually no diplomatic risks. I say to my friends, there is a reason why, although what I am proposing here is not ideal, I think there is a reason why so many people--left, right and center--have come to this conclusion. One thing about us Americans is, we have ultimately led the world as a consequence of two traits we possess, in my opinion, that exceed that of any other country. It is not just our military power; it is our idealism coupled with our pragmatism. It gets down to a very pragmatic question: If you don't like Biden et al.'s political solution, what is yours? What is yours? The world is waiting. They are literally waiting. No one has the capacity, no group of nations has the capacity, absent our active cooperation and engagement, to do anything to better the situation. We do. The potential power is in our hands. But I respectfully suggest that we can't do it by ourselves. We have lost the credibility to do that, rightly or wrongly. So it takes me to the essence of this amendment. The amendment simply says--and I will not take the time to read it; I know other people wish to speak. I might add, this is the first and only time in the last 3 months I have spoken on the floor. I apologize for the time, but I think it is the single most critical issue we face. I know my friends think that too. Regardless of your political persuasion, how do you attend to the agenda each of us has, from the right or the left, to deal with the social ills and concerns of America until we end this war? We are going to spend, counting it all, $120 billion a year. How do you deal with that--the Republican approach to dealing with generating economic growth or the Democratic approach? How do you deal with tax structure and tax policy? How do you do this? Look, it is the ultimate preoccupation, with good reason, of the American people. Again, I know no one more loyal or knowledgable about the U.S. Armed Forces whom I have served with in the Senate than my friend from Virginia. He knows there is only one group of Americans making a sacrifice now--it is the thousands of families, thousands, 166,000 families. It is those families. They are the only ones. But guess what. It is against the Senate rules to refer to the Gallery by pointing to them. But I will refer to previous Galleries. Everyone who sits in this Gallery, they get it. They get it, whether they have a child, son, daughter, husband or wife there. (Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BIDEN. So folks, I must tell you, I am getting frustrated with all the tactical--not strategic--suggestions that have been made with how to deal with this war. Because if you put together a basic syllogism, the basic premise is what? There is no military solution; only a political solution. So what yields that political solution? Can I guarantee the Senator from Minnesota, the Presiding Officer, that my solution will work? No. But I can guarantee--I will rest my career on what I am about to say-- that there is no other political solution being proffered that has any--period; not one ``being offered''--and none of the tactical solutions offered will, in fact, solve this problem, none. I know you are all afraid. I know everybody who is running is afraid to sign onto a specific proposal. ``Afraid'' is the wrong word-- reluctant. Because then you become the target. You become the target. You offer a specific alternative, and it is easy to focus on whether your solution can work. If it is tried and failed, then you made a mistake. As the old saying goes: What do they pay us the big bucks for? Why are we here? Why are we here? Let's stop pussyfooting around. Either vote for this political solution or offer another one or say you think there is a military solution or say you think it is totally hopeless, there is no resolution. Let's leave and hope for the best. But don't tell me you have a plan if it does not fall in one of those four categories. Don't tell me. That is disingenuous. So, again, can I guarantee this will work? No. Every single day that goes by, absent an attempt to implement what I am proposing, or something similar to it, without it being attempted, makes it harder. Look, it is not often that Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Les Gelb--I will go down the list-- agree on the same principle about the most fundamental, immediate foreign policy issue facing the United States of America. I am open--I have no pride of authorship--I am open to amending, tweaking, changing, but I will end where I begin. The central, fundamental, animating principle of this concurrent resolution is: Iraq will not be governed from the center anytime soon, and I am not prepared for my son and his generation to continue to shed their blood in an effort to do that. I will not do that. As we leave--and we will leave, as my friend from Virginia knows--as we leave, the only honest question that any President or Senator must ask himself or herself is: Do we have any ability to affect what we leave behind? If we do, we have a moral overriding, overarching obligation to the next generation to try to do it. Because let me tell you something, I am out there, as the old saying goes, on the trail. The easiest thing to say is: I wash my hands, man. Out. It is--let me choose my words correctly--it is not an answer. It is not an answer. It is not an honest answer. So I ask unanimous consent that recent supporting ideas relating to federalism--whether or not they use the Biden language--be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. I would assert I am confident there are some major players in this administration who agree with the tact I am taking, and I would invite--that is not why he is on the floor, I know--I would invite any advice or suggestions--not at this moment--from my friend from Indiana or my friend from Virginia as to how to deal with this. But, ladies and gentlemen, it took us--it took us--13 years to get to our Philadelphia moment. It is going to take the Iraqis a lot longer. I do not want to see a regional war in the meantime because every one of us knows, whether we are here 3 years from now, there will not be 133,000 troops in Iraq. That will not be the case no matter who is President. The American people will not stand for it, and we will respond. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2335.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I will not call it up at the moment. I withdraw the request. I do ask unanimous consent that Senators Graham, Casey, Brown, and Sanders be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2335.

Mr. BIDEN. I want to explain briefly what this amendment does. It adds $23.6 billion to allow the Army to replace all of its up-armored HMMWVs with mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, the so-called MRAPs. It also adds a billion dollars to increase the cost of the 8,000 MRAPs we are trying to purchase today. In terms of the specifics of this amendment, the idea is simple. If we can prevent two-thirds or more of our casualties with a vehicle that is basically a modified and armored truck, we have to do all in our power to do it, in my view. Last, it provides $400 million for better protection against explosively formed penetrators or EFPs. These are those shaped-charges that hit our vehicles from the side and are increasingly deadly. I want to be straight with my colleagues. This is a very expensive amendment. Twenty-five billion dollars is a lot of money. But compared to saving the lives and limbs of American soldiers and marines, it is cheap. Our commanders in the field tell us that MRAPs will reduce casualties by 67 to 80 percent. The lead commander on the ground in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, told us months ago that he wanted to replace every Army up-armored HMMWV in Iraq with an MRAP. Instead of adjusting the requirement immediately, the Pentagon has taken its time to study this issue and just recently they have agreed that the general needs a little over half of what he asked for. 10,000 instead of approximately 18,000. This makes no sense. Are we only supposed to care about the tactical advice of our commanders in the field when it is cheap? I don't think that is what the American people or our military men and women expect from us. More importantly, while we argue about the best strategy for Iraq, we must still protect those under fire. I disagree with the President's strategy in Iraq. I do not believe a strong central government will lead to a stable, self-sufficient Iraq. I think we need a new strategy that focuses on implementing the Iraqi constitution's call for federalism and re-focuses the mission of American forces on fighting al-Qaida, border protection, and continuing to train the Iraqi forces. While we disagree on strategy, the fight continues in the alleys of Baghdad and the streets of Diyala Province. American soldiers and marines are targets every day they are there. So every day they are there, we must give them the best protection this nation has. The American political process is designed to make change and decisionmaking a slow and deliberative process. Those of us who want a change in strategy have three options. One, we must convince enough colleagues to sustain a veto from the President; or, two, we must convince the American people to elect enough new Senators and House Members willing to sustain a veto. Or, finally, three, we must convince the American people to elect a President willing to change strategies. That is reality. I believe in this system, which means I will not walk away from my duty to try to convince both my colleagues and the American people that there is a better path to stability in Iraq. It also means that I will not give up on my obligation to our military men and women. While we take the time necessary to move the political process for change, they face improvised explosive devices, rocket propelled grenades, explosively formed penetrators, sniper fire, and suicide bombers every day. We have an obligation to protect each and every one of them to the best of our ability. I agree with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway when he said, ``Anything less is immoral.'' In terms of the specifics of this amendment, the idea is very simple. If we can prevent two-thirds or more of our casualties with a vehicle that is basically a modified and armored truck, we must do all in our power to do that. Will it be a challenge to American industry to build close to 23,000 MRAPs in the next 12 to 15 months? Absolutely. Can they do it? Only if we give them a real chance. If we provide funding up front for all that is needed, we give business the ability to increase capacity to produce. If we give little bits here and there, they and their subcontractors will be limited in their ability to produce these life- saving vehicles. Less will be produced and more Americans will return injured or dead. I gave a statement on July 19, when I first introduced this amendment, that laid out some of the history of the MRAP program. I won't go into all of that again, but I will reiterate the key choice my colleagues have to make: Do we do our best to save American lives, knowing that the only downside is the possible need to reprogram funding at the end of the year, or do we care more about some unknown topline wartime funding number than those lives? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the managers of the bill and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on June 27, 2007, the Committee on Foreign Relations ordered reported S. 966, the Passport Backlog Reduction Act of 2007. On July 30, the President signed the bill into law, Public Law 110-50. At the time the committee filed its report, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, was not available. It was recently provided to the committee by CBO. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to recognize the people of the Republic of Greece who have demonstrated great bravery in the midst of terrible tragedy this summer. More than 5 people have died in the fires ravaging Greece during the past month. The scope of these fires is shocking. The flames showed no mercy to the elderly, young children, or the treasures of antiquity. Our sympathy and condolences go out to the families of the dozens of people who have died as a result of this tragedy and to the many people driven from their homes by the disaster. As in New Orleans after Katrina, or in the wake of any terrible disaster, emergency aid is critical, but focus on the long-term needs of the victims is essential. The Greek people have responded bravely to the crisis. I understand that the Government of the United States has provided assistance and is in the process of working with the Greek Government, Greek-American organizations, and the Greek Orthodox Church to determine what those needs are. I urge the administration to continue to demonstrate our commitment to our Greek allies in the wake of these horrific events. Our allies can and should rightly judge us by our concern and commitment for them in times of adversity. Greece has been there for us; America must be there for Greece.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I commend a distinguished public servant, the commander of Delaware Civil Air Patrol, COL Russell M. Opland. Civil Air Patrol, CAP, is the official auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, and is comprised entirely of civilian volunteers. It was formed on the shores of Delaware and New Jersey in 1941 to patrol coastal waters for enemy submarines. The wing commander is the senior corporate officer within a CAP Wing and is responsible to the Civil Air Patrol Corporation and to the regional commander for ensuring that corporate objectives, policies, and operational directives are executed within the Wing. CAP has three missions: cadet programs, emergency services, and aerospace education. The cadet program provides youth, ages 12-21, the opportunity to serve their communities and develop into responsible citizens, inspiring them to become the next generation of pilots, engineers, mechanics, and aviation enthusiasts. As part of the emergency services mission, CAP performs 95 percent of inland aerial search and rescue missions in the continental U.S. CAP volunteers also perform homeland security, disaster relief, and counterdrug missions at the request of Federal, State, and local agencies. Colonel Opland has led the Delaware Wing of the CAP since August 2003 and will step down on September 8, 2007. He has volunteered an average of 38 hours a week to the people of Delaware and the CAP cadets while still keeping his full time job as chief privacy and information security officer for the University of Pennsylvania Health System. During his tenure as commander, Colonel Opland earned significant awards and honors including the following: four Exceptional Service Awards, three Meritorious Service Awards, the Gill Robb Wilson Award, No. 2074, Delaware Wing Senior Member of the Year, the Air Force Association, AFA, Award for Outstanding CAP Achievements, ``Outstanding'' rating as Commander, 2005 Wing Compliance Inspection, and ``Outstanding'' rating as Incident Commander, 2003 Evaluated SAR/DR exercise. In addition to his personal awards, Colonel Opland led the Delaware Wing to national recognition. Despite the Wing's small size, Colonel Opland's attention to operational detail and discipline allowed the Delaware Wing to log the most flying hours of any CAP wing in the nation, resulting in the wing receiving three new aircraft. For each of the past four years, Delaware cadets participating in national drill team and/or color guard competitions placed third or higher. I commend Colonel Opland for his dedication to aerospace education, to helping build young enthusiasts who believe in volunteering, and to the vital aerial missions that help keep Delaware and the Nation more secure. It is the tireless work of citizens like him that make this Nation great.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the farmers in my State of Delaware, and those in other parts of the Nation, who are looking out their windows and seeing the damage caused by a drought. This is the time of year when corn is at its best, at its sweetest, but in Delaware, specifically in Sussex and Kent Counties, where agriculture is king, my guys are in trouble. On some farms, corn is half the size it should be, brown and withered, stalks, with no ears of corn. Losses, I have been told, are 50 percent of the crop or even 100 percent of a farmers total crop. Soybeans are also in jeopardy. And we are facing a forecast with little or no rain. As I have been telling my colleagues, for more than three decades, agriculture is an enormous and vital part of my State. Delaware is an agricultural State. Almost 50 percent of our total acreage is farmland. Sussex County, the southernmost county in my State, is the largest poultry producing county in the entire country. Delaware is first in production value per farm and first in cash receipts per acre. We are ranked No. 2 in lima bean production, and we have 200,000 acres of soybeans and 175,000 acres of corn. Sadly, this is not the first time that my State has faced a severe drought. In 2002, our farmers faced similar circumstances and suffered major losses. When a severe drought strikes, the impact on the economy, the environment, and the agricultural sector can be devastating. USDA's assistance during these crucial periods help the livelihoods of our farmers in Delaware. Farmers, always at the mercy of the weather, are constantly faced with decisions of how to best manage risk. With Delaware soil, irrigation is oftentimes an option, but it is an expensive one which can be daunting to a farmer trying to make a profit. Another tool which farmers look to is crop insurance. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have supported incentives to make such tools attractive and affordable to farmers. Bur for now, our Governor has started the process that triggers Federal assistance by calling for the Delaware Farm Service Agency to survey the crops. Because it is essential that the State, or specific counties, be designated as crop disaster areas to make farmers eligible for Federal disaster assistance, I am hopeful that they complete the process soon. If disaster assistance is needed, I hope the Secretary of Agriculture will move swiftly to help.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I voted in favor of tabling the Alexander-Collins amendment on the REAL ID Act, Senate Amendment 2405, because I wanted to prevent reducing by almost 1 percent critical Federal spending on port and rail security, first responders' resources, and other homeland security protections. Rail infrastructure is the most widely attacked terrorist target in the world, and we must increase, not decrease, funding for our railroads. Similarly, port security is a top priority in our antiterrorism campaign, and I opposed this effort to divert funding from protecting our ports. I appreciate the work of my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to craft a balanced spending bill.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 1 year ago this month, the United Nations Under Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Ibrahim Gambari, presided over a joint meeting between the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, and the head of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mehmet Ali Talat. Their discussions reaffirmed a commitment by both sides to forge a lasting peace on Cyprus and push forward with talks to that end. In the months since that meeting, the Cypriot peace process has stagnated. The talks that both sides agreed to never took place, and petty disputes over bureaucratic issues have stymied progress on substantive negotiations. Simply put, the people of Cyprus deserve better. A generation of Cypriots has now grown to adulthood estranged from their peaceful shared history and their promising shared destiny. I believe we must correct this wrong before others on the island endure a similar fate. Unless the peace process begins to move at a much faster pace, that may not happen. In the last few days, there have been some signs of progress but also troubling indications that the paralysis of the past year might continue. President Papadopoulos invited Mr. Talat to discuss the peace process, a significant step in the right direction. However, Mr. Talat--after first accepting the invitation--later claimed that it was not the right time for a meeting. I sincerely hope he will change his view and that the resulting discussions will yield real results. Neither side can afford to engage in another round of foot-dragging. I do not want to look back in a year on another anniversary of missed opportunities. Since 2003, there have been millions of peaceful crossings at the Green Line that segregates the island's two communities. Cypriots of all ethnicities have clearly demonstrated their ability to coexist. It is time for political leaders to bring their policies in line with the actions of their people. As part of that process, Turkey should begin the withdrawal of troops from Cyprus. The presence of these forces is neither justified nor necessary and complicates efforts to return the island to a state of lasting peace. Mr. President, as I have said before, the reunification of Cyprus will have significance far beyond the Mediterranean. The island could serve as an example of how different ethnic groups can overcome past wrongs, bridge differences, and live together as neighbors. I am confident that future generations of Cypriots can serve as such a model and, in doing so, enjoy the peace that they rightly deserve. I hope that their political leaders will move quickly to afford them that opportunity.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. One of the defining challenges of our age is to effectively combat international terrorism while maintaining our national values and our commitment to the rule of law, and respecting individual rights and civil liberties. To fight terrorist organizations whose tactics include blending into our cities and communities and attacking civilian populations engaged in the activities of everyday life, we must have robust and agile intelligence capabilities. Rendition, detaining a terrorist operative in one foreign country and transfering him to the United States or to another foreign country to face justice, has proved to be one effective means of taking terrorists off the streets and collecting valuable intelligence. Despite its effectiveness, however, the U.S. Government's use of rendition has been controversial. Foreign governments have criticized the practice as ungoverned by law and on the basis of its alleged use to transfer suspects to countries that torture or mistreat them or to secret, extraterritorial prisons. The toll the rendition program, as currently practiced, has had on relationships with some of our closest foreign partners is evident from their responses. Italy has indicted 26 Americans for their alleged role in a rendition. Germany has issued arrest warrants for an additional 13 U.S. intelligence officers. A Canadian Government commission has censured the United States for rendering a Canadian/Syrian dual citizen to Syria. The Council of Europe and the European Union have each issued reports critical of the U.S. Government's rendition program and European countries' involvement or complicity in it. Sweden and Switzerland have each initiated investigations as well. Today, the United Kingdom issued a report predicting that the U.S. Government's rendition program would have ``serious implications'' for the intelligence relation between the U.S. and U.K., one of our most important foreign partners. Rendition, as currently practiced, is undermining our moral credibility and standing abroad and weakening the coalitions with foreign governments that we need to effectively combat international terrorism. The controversial aspects of the U.S. Government's use of rendition have also not escaped the notice of the propagandists and recruiters who fuel and sustain international terrorist organizations with a constant stream of new recruits. Allegations of lawlessness and mistreatment by the U.S. make their job easier, adding a refrain to their recruitment pitch and increasing the receptivity of their target audience. Our counterterrorism authorities should not only thwart attacks, take dangerous terrorists off the streets, and bring them to justice; these authorities should also strengthen international coalitions, draw Muslim populations around the world closer to us, and deprive terrorists of a recruitment narrative. In our long term effort to stem the tide of international terrorism, our commitments to the rule of law and to individual rights and civil liberties are among our most formidable weapons. They are what unite foreign governments behind us in effective counterterrorism coalitions. They are what unite public opinion in support of our counterterrorism efforts and in condemnation of the terrorists and their tactics. They are what prevent the recruitment of the next generation of international terrorists. This bill maintains rendition as a robust and agile tool in our fight against international terrorism, but it brings that tool within the rule of law, provides additional safeguards against error, and prohibits rendering individuals to countries that will torture or mistreat them or to secret, extra-territorial prisons. The bill establishes a classified application and order process, presided over by the FISA court that: 1. ensures that each rendition is preceded by a searching inquiry into the identity of the individual to be rendered and his role in international terrorism and 2. prohibits rendition to countries that torture or mistreat detainees or to secret, extraterritorial prisons beyond the reach of law. It ensures that citizens of, and individuals lawfully admitted to, the U.S. receive the due process and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It ensures that a terrorist suspect detained by the U.S. has the opportunity, through a writ of habeas corpus, to argue in a court of law that he is being held in error. This bill also closes a hole intentionally left open by the President's recent Executive Order on the treatment of detainees. The President's order is notably silent on some of the more controversial techniques the CIA has allegedly used in the past, such as waterboarding, extreme sleep deprivation, extreme sensory deprivation, and extremes of heat and cold. When we countenance this treatment of detainees, we diminish our ability to argue that the same techniques should not be used against our own troops. We cannot continue to equivocate and dissemble on this matter. We need to send a clear message that torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees is unacceptable and is not permitted by U.S. law. Period. Therefore, my bill prohibits all officers and agents of the United States from using techniques of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. As I said at the outset, this bill grapples with one of the defining issues of our age, how to effectively combat terrorism without sacrificing our national values and abandoning the rule of law. If we continue to pursue a rendition program ungoverned by law, without sufficient safeguards and oversight, we will perpetuate a short term solution that exacerbates the long term problem. We will take individual terrorists off the streets at the expense of the foreign coalitions that are essential to our efforts to combat international terrorism, at the expense of facilitating the recruitment of a new generation of terrorists who are just as dangerous and far more numerous. This is not a trade-off we have to make. We can have a robust and agile rendition capability governed by the rule of law and subject to sufficient safeguards and oversight. That is what the National Security with Justice Act creates. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the other branches of Government to work with me to refine this legal framework so that we not only take today's terrorists off the streets, we strengthen our standing and credibility among foreign governments and the global community, and we prevent tomorrow's terrorists from being recruited. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. One of the defining challenges of our age is to effectively combat international terrorism while maintaining our national values and our commitment to the rule of law, and respecting individual rights and civil liberties. To fight terrorist organizations whose tactics include blending into our cities and communities and attacking civilian populations engaged in the activities of everyday life, we must have robust and agile intelligence capabilities. Rendition, detaining a terrorist operative in one foreign country and transfering him to the United States or to another foreign country to face justice, has proved to be one effective means of taking terrorists off the streets and collecting valuable intelligence. Despite its effectiveness, however, the U.S. Government's use of rendition has been controversial. Foreign governments have criticized the practice as ungoverned by law and on the basis of its alleged use to transfer suspects to countries that torture or mistreat them or to secret, extraterritorial prisons. The toll the rendition program, as currently practiced, has had on relationships with some of our closest foreign partners is evident from their responses. Italy has indicted 26 Americans for their alleged role in a rendition. Germany has issued arrest warrants for an additional 13 U.S. intelligence officers. A Canadian Government commission has censured the United States for rendering a Canadian/Syrian dual citizen to Syria. The Council of Europe and the European Union have each issued reports critical of the U.S. Government's rendition program and European countries' involvement or complicity in it. Sweden and Switzerland have each initiated investigations as well. Today, the United Kingdom issued a report predicting that the U.S. Government's rendition program would have ``serious implications'' for the intelligence relation between the U.S. and U.K., one of our most important foreign partners. Rendition, as currently practiced, is undermining our moral credibility and standing abroad and weakening the coalitions with foreign governments that we need to effectively combat international terrorism. The controversial aspects of the U.S. Government's use of rendition have also not escaped the notice of the propagandists and recruiters who fuel and sustain international terrorist organizations with a constant stream of new recruits. Allegations of lawlessness and mistreatment by the U.S. make their job easier, adding a refrain to their recruitment pitch and increasing the receptivity of their target audience. Our counterterrorism authorities should not only thwart attacks, take dangerous terrorists off the streets, and bring them to justice; these authorities should also strengthen international coalitions, draw Muslim populations around the world closer to us, and deprive terrorists of a recruitment narrative. In our long term effort to stem the tide of international terrorism, our commitments to the rule of law and to individual rights and civil liberties are among our most formidable weapons. They are what unite foreign governments behind us in effective counterterrorism coalitions. They are what unite public opinion in support of our counterterrorism efforts and in condemnation of the terrorists and their tactics. They are what prevent the recruitment of the next generation of international terrorists. This bill maintains rendition as a robust and agile tool in our fight against international terrorism, but it brings that tool within the rule of law, provides additional safeguards against error, and prohibits rendering individuals to countries that will torture or mistreat them or to secret, extra-territorial prisons. The bill establishes a classified application and order process, presided over by the FISA court that: 1. ensures that each rendition is preceded by a searching inquiry into the identity of the individual to be rendered and his role in international terrorism and 2. prohibits rendition to countries that torture or mistreat detainees or to secret, extraterritorial prisons beyond the reach of law. It ensures that citizens of, and individuals lawfully admitted to, the U.S. receive the due process and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It ensures that a terrorist suspect detained by the U.S. has the opportunity, through a writ of habeas corpus, to argue in a court of law that he is being held in error. This bill also closes a hole intentionally left open by the President's recent Executive Order on the treatment of detainees. The President's order is notably silent on some of the more controversial techniques the CIA has allegedly used in the past, such as waterboarding, extreme sleep deprivation, extreme sensory deprivation, and extremes of heat and cold. When we countenance this treatment of detainees, we diminish our ability to argue that the same techniques should not be used against our own troops. We cannot continue to equivocate and dissemble on this matter. We need to send a clear message that torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees is unacceptable and is not permitted by U.S. law. Period. Therefore, my bill prohibits all officers and agents of the United States from using techniques of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. As I said at the outset, this bill grapples with one of the defining issues of our age, how to effectively combat terrorism without sacrificing our national values and abandoning the rule of law. If we continue to pursue a rendition program ungoverned by law, without sufficient safeguards and oversight, we will perpetuate a short term solution that exacerbates the long term problem. We will take individual terrorists off the streets at the expense of the foreign coalitions that are essential to our efforts to combat international terrorism, at the expense of facilitating the recruitment of a new generation of terrorists who are just as dangerous and far more numerous. This is not a trade-off we have to make. We can have a robust and agile rendition capability governed by the rule of law and subject to sufficient safeguards and oversight. That is what the National Security with Justice Act creates. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the other branches of Government to work with me to refine this legal framework so that we not only take today's terrorists off the streets, we strengthen our standing and credibility among foreign governments and the global community, and we prevent tomorrow's terrorists from being recruited. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi on passage of this very important legislation. I also thank them for their assistance in including within the Higher Education Amendments Act of 2007 a bill I have worked on, the Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program. The Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program will bring us one step closer to making sure that every child has the opportunity to go to college. Our current higher education system is riddled with barriers that students must overcome to obtain the keys to their future--a college education. This program will break down some of those very barriers by making an early promise of Federal aid to students early enough in their academic careers so that the reality of a college education is firmly in their grasp. How we choose to support our students today will have broad ramifications for not only them but for our country 10, 20, and 30 years down the road. The consequences are dire if we do not take a more aggressive approach to make sure the doors to a college education are open wide enough so every student that wants to pursue a college education can do so regardless of their family income. If we maintain the status quo, the outlook for too many students is grim. Take, for example, the fact that over the next decade 2 million college-ready students from households with an income below $50,000 will not attend college because they cannot afford the costs. Every door we fail to open for our students is a door closed--a missed opportunity--for our country down the road. I commend my colleagues for their leadership in developing meaningful reforms regarding the cost of and access to a college education in this bill as well as the recently passed Higher Education Access Act of 2007. I am pleased that the Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program is one component of those reforms--providing students and their families with a commitment of Federal aid early in their academic careers, information about the costs of college, and information about the various types of available financial aid. Right now, students don't find out whether they are eligible for Federal aid until their senior year--much less how much they will receive. This timeframe doesn't work for many families. Making a commitment--a promise--of Federal aid to students at an early age will begin the conversation about college earlier and continue it through the day they receive the acceptance letters from the schools of their choice. If you have seen the news articles, or if you are putting a child through college, you know that the cost of a college education can be daunting to a student and their family. Many children think-- erroneously--that they can't afford to go to college, and they go through high school thinking their futures are limited. We should not wait to tell those that need it that they will receive help to pay for college. Committing a Pell grant--the maximum of which is $4,310 under current law and $5,400 in the Senate-passed Higher Education Access Act--will critically alter the expectations of low-income students. For those students whose future plans often do not include college, this program will provide a financial promise, and the hope that comes with knowing you can afford a college degree. Under this early commitment plan, four States will receive funding for a demonstration program, each of which will work with two cohorts of up to 10,000 8th grade students; one in school year 2008-2009, and one in school year 2009-2010. Schools with a National School Lunch Program participation rate above 50 percent would be eligible for the program, and by using the same eligibility criteria as the National School Lunch Program, students would be identified based on need in the 8th grade. The Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program will also provide funding for states, in conjunction with the participating local educational agencies, to conduct targeted information campaigns beginning in the 8th grade and continuing through students' senior year. These campaigns will inform students and their families of the program and provide information about the cost of a college education, state and federal financial assistance, and the average amount of aid awards. A targeted information campaign, along with a guarantee of a Pell grant, will allow families and students to not just plan ahead for college, but to dream of a future that includes higher education.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I want to explain an amendment I hope to get adopted when we return to the Defense authorization bill and that I have filed today. Let me be very frank. This is a very expensive amendment. It is also, literally, priceless. It makes good on this commitment: So long as a single American soldier or marine remains in Iraq, we will provide him or her with the best protection this country can provide. Let me start with the basics. There are two critical issues facing our soldiers and marines today: improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs. IEDs are planted in roads and on the side of roads to hit the bottom of vehicles with powerful explosives. EFPs are shaped charges that come into the side armor of vehicles at high speeds. We know that IEDs now cause about 70 percent of all American fatalities. Since 2003, in any given month, IEDs have caused between 30 and 76 percent of American fatalities. For every death, there are usually 2 to 10 Americans wounded. Over the past year, we have also seen a growing threat from EFPs. They are not yet everywhere in Iraq, but they are spreading and they are very lethal. The military has a strategy for dealing with both. First, they seek to disrupt the organizations that produce IEDs and EFPs. They go after the people and the supplies. Second, they attempt to use tactics and technology to prevent IEDs and EFPs from being activated when American personnel are close enough to be harmed. Third, they attempt to survive a direct hit. It is the third area where we could and should have done much more to make a difference years ago but where still today we can and must make a difference. The military has tested, both at testing centers and in the field, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, also called an MRAP. The MRAP provides dramatically improved protection against IEDs. The military has said that it is four to five times as good as an up- armored HMMWV. More important, military commanders tell us that it will reduce deaths and casualties from IEDs by 67 to 80 percent. The Brookings Institution found that 1,400 Americans died in Iraq due to IEDs from March of 2003 through June of 2007. If we had had MRAPs in the field from the start--and we could and should have--938 to 1,120 Americans would be alive today. And let me just clarify for my colleagues that this is not new technology. It has been used successfully in Africa, by nations much poorer than ours, since the 1970s. I don't want to get bogged down in history, but this is not rocket science. Every day we delay, another soldier or marine is killed or injured by an IED. If we just look at this year, IEDs killed 309 Americans; 207 to 247 would still be alive today if they had been in MRAPs. We need to make sure that for the second half of 2007, those MRAPs are there and those lives are saved. What about the threat from these shaped charges that come in from the side, the EFP? The Army's Rapid Equipping Force and the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization started working on that last year. In conjunction with industry, they produced a vehicle nicknamed ``the Bull'' and officially called the Highly Survivable Urban Vehicle Ballistic Protection Experiment Program. This vehicle was tested and shown to defeat EFPs and also tested against the first level of MRAP requirements. That testing was completed in March of this year. For some reason, the military has not asked for another vehicle to do the MRAP level two tests. So we do not actually know how capable this vehicle might be for all threats, but we know it works against EFPs. Instead of trying to get ahead of the enemy and get this technology into the field, the military seems to be sitting on its hands while the EFP threat has increased. Why wouldn't you field something you know works? The perfect vehicle would be a complete MRAP with EFP protection, but that appears to be many months away, although some MRAP producers tell me that their vehicles have survived EFP hits in the field. So again, we do not have the complete picture. We have also been told that Frag- Kit-6 armor can defeat EFPs, but it is too heavy for MRAPs. So vehicles must be redesigned and retested. This will take time. I understand that and support that effort, but Americans are dying today. Again, as with the MRAP, we have a technology that could keep them alive, and we should be using it while we work to perfect it. I do not know if all of my colleagues saw the USA Today article that appeared on Monday detailing some of the history surrounding the MRAP. I will summarize a few points but will ask to have the entire article printed in the Record. This article details efforts to get MRAPs going back to 2003. It also details the reasons for delay, and that is what I want to point out to my colleagues. First, apparently, the leadership at the Pentagon did not expect this war to last this long. Well, that is no surprise. We all remember the ``Mission Accomplished'' speech and the promise of roses in the streets. We remember Vice President Cheney telling us that the insurgency was in its death throes. We remember Secretary Rumsfeld telling us that crime in Baghdad was not any worse than that in Washington, DC. I remember all of that. Sadly, none of those leaders remember the hearings that Senator Lugar and I held before the war began that predicted the need for a long-term American presence and engagement. They don't remember some of us, starting before the war, repeatedly urged the President to level with the American people about the likely duration, cost, and danger of this war. Perhaps even more tragically, this uncertainty about future force levels continues to limit the military commitment to fielding more MRAPs and EFP protected vehicles. Second, these vehicles were seen as contrary to Secretary Rumsfeld's vision for the transformed military, a lighter, more agile force. While it depends on what armored humvee you are talking about, many believed that MRAPs were heavier and slower than humvees. The stifling effect Secretary Rumsfeld's views and management style had on military leaders is well known to everyone who follows military issues. In this instance, it meant that officers were predisposed against the heavier vehicle and didn't push the issue when our forces in the field asked for MRAP technology. Instead, they focused on the first two parts of the anti-IED strategy I talked about earlier. Finally, and most disturbing to me, many believed that Congress would not support funding the MRAP while also fielding better armored humvees. I do not know of a single wartime funding request that Congress has denied. There have been some items added to the supplemental bills that were clearly not urgent or war related, but nothing directly linked to current operations was refused. Nonetheless, it appears that the military did not believe that our support for needed equipment was for real. Even today, I hear that leaders are concerned that they must cut multiple existing programs to pay for this growing MRAP requirement. There may be programs that we could all agree are not as vital for a wartime Army, but I do not want that debate and concern to slow lifesaving equipment. I understand that this program will be the third largest procurement program in the Pentagon. As I said, it is very costly. We can work together in the future to find the lower priority programs that simply should not be funded if they are competing with lifesaving programs. We do not have any more time to delay spending the money needed to buy these vehicles, however, if we are going to save lives. Leadership is about making hard choices, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to do whatever it takes. I am even willing to cut programs I support because saving lives and limbs under fire today must truly be our first priority. So, today, with this amendment I hope we can make it clear that we will provide whatever funding is needed, so that military leaders do not fear being honest about their needs. In addition to the issues brought out in the article, I have also heard a regular concern that some in the military do not believe MRAPs will be needed in the future--that when we leave Iraq, we will leave most of these vehicles behind. I was happy to see the Secretary of the Army, Peter Geren, state clearly in his confirmation hearing that he believes MRAPs will be needed in future conflicts. It is clear to me that until we show America's enemies that we can handle IEDs, they will continue to use them throughout the world. We are already seeing an increased use of IEDs in Afghanistan. It is also clear to me that those who worry about what the military will be driving in 5 years are missing the boat here. I understand that there are great advancements being developed for our future force. But we have a sacred trust to those on the front lines today, right now. Right now, we are saying to them: If you survive this war, we will get you really good protection for the next one. Give me a break. To paraphrase a former Secretary of Defense, you fight the war you are in, not the war you might be in down the road. Ideally, you do both, but your priority has to be protecting the men and women under fire now. End of story. Can anyone imagine Roosevelt saying, ``Listen, we may not need some of those boats after Normandy, so maybe we should not build so many?'' Of course not. War is inherently wasteful and this war is no exception. I am willing to waste money and equipment if it means we don't waste lives and limbs. The fact that we may not need all of the vehicles we buy today in 5 years, is no reason to shortchange the soldiers and marines who truly need the vehicles today. I have given my colleagues some of this history so they will understand why we must stand up for our marines and soldiers on this issue. We must cut through the ``business as usual'' bureaucracy. I applaud Secretary Gates for making MRAPs the top priority of the military, but I am concerned that even now, some of the same problems continue. After all, Army commanders in Iraq concluded that they need 17,700 MRAPs. That is 15,200 more than currently being bought. We must act now to put money in the pipeline to order the additional vehicles and expand production capacity. Instead, we find out that 2 months later, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has yet to approve the Army request as a ``validated joint requirement.'' I don't get it. The President tells us that the most important thing in this war is the judgment of our commanders in the field. Now, I may disagree with the policy being executed, but I would agree that when it comes to tactical decisions about the best way to implement our policies, this is the right approach. Apparently, others feel that the commanders should only be listened to selectively, when it does not cost too much money. The commanders in the field have said that they need an additional 15,200 mine resistant vehicles for the Army. They have also said that they need thousands of vehicles with EFP protection. So, why the delay? No one from the Pentagon has been able to explain it to me. Last, some argue that the real problem is production capacity. I simply don't buy it. We are being told that American industry cannot handle this or does not care enough about our soldiers and marines to do it. I don't buy it. These are purely military vehicles. If the military does not place the orders, industry will not build them, and they certainly won't create new production capacity. They cannot sell the extras to your neighbor or mine. So we must put the money up front and challenge our companies to deliver quickly. We did that on the supplemental where Congress accepted my amendment adding $1.2 billion. Because that led to increased production capacity, Secretary Gates has reprogrammed another $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2007 to take advantage of that new capacity. We made it to the Moon by putting money up front and challenging Americans to do their best to get there. MRAPs and EFP protected vehicles are basically modified trucks. America knows how to make trucks and how to make a lot of them. As I said before, this is not rocket science. If we buy it, they will build it. What if they cannot? What if industry can only get 15,000 or 20,000 of the 23,000 we need built by the end of fiscal year 2008? Well, I tell my colleagues, than we will know that we gave them every chance to succeed. More important, we gave our soldiers and marines their best chance to survive this war. And the downside is simply that all of the funds we provide cannot be spent in 1 year and all of the vehicles cannot be purchased. In that situation, all we have to do is authorize reprogramming the unspent funds for the next fiscal year. Compared to taking a chance on saving our kids, that is an easy downside to accept. I opened by saying that this was a very expensive amendment, and it is. Let me be clear. It provides $23.6 billion for Army MRAPs, enough money to buy the 15,200 the commanders in the field are asking for. The amount is based on the last cost estimate I was given by the Pentagon on July 9. The amendment also provides an additional $1 billion that I have been told is needed for the purchase of 7,774 MRAPs currently planned for and funded in this bill. The increased funds are needed for airlift, training, and maintenance costs not originally included in the program budget. In addition, the amendment provides $400 million for EFP protection. Half is to field 200 of the vehicles already tested and half is for the joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization to continue to work on and field better vehicles. The Bull may not be the perfect answer, but it gives us a chance to save American lives today. While we work on the perfect solution, an MRAP with EFP protection, we should still be giving our soldiers and marines the best we have today. The military needs to see if the Bull can provide full MRAP protection. They also need to look at other ideas for improving MRAPs, but while they do, we should take advantage of the proven technology we have at hand. Last, this amendment asks Secretary Gates to report back to us within 30 days on any legal authorities he needs to produce and field these protective vehicles faster. Let me also clarify what we are adding these funds to. The Armed Services Committee added $4.1 billion to the President's initial request for a mere $441 million for MRAPs in this bill. At the time, that was all that was thought to be needed to meet the 7,774 requirement and I applaud the committee for meeting that need. The situation has changed since the bill came out of committee. We now know that the Army commanders on the ground want far more. We cannot get such a large order produced if we continue to delay. For me, this is very simple. I believe that when our sons and daughters are getting blown up and we have vehicles proven to dramatically improve their odds of survival, we must get the vehicles to them. This amendment allows us to do that. When the Senate returns to debate on the Defense Authorization Act, I hope all of my colleagues will support it. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the article to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with Senators Levin and Lautenberg, a piece of legislation which I hope will help the American victims of Libyan terrorism and their families move one step closer to receiving justice for the terrible crimes committed against them. Our legislation requires the administration to submit to Congress twice yearly reports on the status of the outstanding legal claims by these American victims and their families against the government of Libya. It also requires the administration to explain its own efforts on their behalf. I believe it is in the United States' strategic interest to develop better relations with Libya. Colonel Qaddafi renounced terrorism and dismantled Libyan weapons of mass destruction programs. We need to demonstrate to the rogue regimes of the world that there is a path back to the civilized community of nations. Libya is an important country in its own right as a gateway between Europe and Africa, as a country which shares a border with the Darfur region of Sudan, and as an OPEC member. But for this relationship to advance, we need to come to terms with the past. Several hundred Americans have been killed by Libyan terrorism and scores more have been injured. The Libyan regime has accepted responsibility for the heinous Pan Am 103 bombing, which killed 270 Americans. That admission also helped pave the way to the negotiations that led to Libya's renunciation of its support for terrorism and its WMD programs. But the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 are still waiting for the final settlement of their case. Last year, the Libyan government agreed to terms with the victims of the La Belle discotheque bombing in Germany. But they have since refused to honor the previously agreed upon terms. Other victims of Libyan terror are still waiting for justice. Their cases may be smaller in scale, but pain that the victims and their families have suffered is no less real. The victims and families deserve to know what their government is doing on their behalf to settle these cases. Colonel Qaddafi needs to understand that the way forward needs to account for the past. And the State Department needs to begin to develop a coherent vision for what we hope to achieve in the Libyan--American relationship. This piece of legislation we offer is modest, but I believe that it can help us to make progress in each of these three aspects. Lastly, I would like to say a few words about the human rights conditions inside Libya. Yes, Americans are interested in Libya's external behavior. But we are also concerned about the human rights conditions within Libya. I am relieved that the death sentence of the six Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor accused of infecting Libyan children with HIV has been commuted. But the case against them is preposterous, as confirmed by rigorous investigations into the allegations by UNESCO and the World Health Organization. That they remain in jail is outrageous. For more than 3 years, years, I have been calling for the release of Fathi Eljahmi, a courageous democracy advocate with serious health problems whose only crime is to speak truth to power. I again call on the Libyan government to release Mr. Eljahmi.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with Senators Levin and Lautenberg, a piece of legislation which I hope will help the American victims of Libyan terrorism and their families move one step closer to receiving justice for the terrible crimes committed against them. Our legislation requires the administration to submit to Congress twice yearly reports on the status of the outstanding legal claims by these American victims and their families against the government of Libya. It also requires the administration to explain its own efforts on their behalf. I believe it is in the United States' strategic interest to develop better relations with Libya. Colonel Qaddafi renounced terrorism and dismantled Libyan weapons of mass destruction programs. We need to demonstrate to the rogue regimes of the world that there is a path back to the civilized community of nations. Libya is an important country in its own right as a gateway between Europe and Africa, as a country which shares a border with the Darfur region of Sudan, and as an OPEC member. But for this relationship to advance, we need to come to terms with the past. Several hundred Americans have been killed by Libyan terrorism and scores more have been injured. The Libyan regime has accepted responsibility for the heinous Pan Am 103 bombing, which killed 270 Americans. That admission also helped pave the way to the negotiations that led to Libya's renunciation of its support for terrorism and its WMD programs. But the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 are still waiting for the final settlement of their case. Last year, the Libyan government agreed to terms with the victims of the La Belle discotheque bombing in Germany. But they have since refused to honor the previously agreed upon terms. Other victims of Libyan terror are still waiting for justice. Their cases may be smaller in scale, but pain that the victims and their families have suffered is no less real. The victims and families deserve to know what their government is doing on their behalf to settle these cases. Colonel Qaddafi needs to understand that the way forward needs to account for the past. And the State Department needs to begin to develop a coherent vision for what we hope to achieve in the Libyan--American relationship. This piece of legislation we offer is modest, but I believe that it can help us to make progress in each of these three aspects. Lastly, I would like to say a few words about the human rights conditions inside Libya. Yes, Americans are interested in Libya's external behavior. But we are also concerned about the human rights conditions within Libya. I am relieved that the death sentence of the six Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor accused of infecting Libyan children with HIV has been commuted. But the case against them is preposterous, as confirmed by rigorous investigations into the allegations by UNESCO and the World Health Organization. That they remain in jail is outrageous. For more than 3 years, years, I have been calling for the release of Fathi Eljahmi, a courageous democracy advocate with serious health problems whose only crime is to speak truth to power. I again call on the Libyan government to release Mr. Eljahmi.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Lugar and I introduce a resolution calling for the urgent deployment of a peacekeeping mission to Darfur, but also laying out some benchmarks for that mission. We are all aware of the terrible carnage that 4 years of genocide have wrought in Darfur and the surrounding region. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions more have been driven into camps. The world has watched, it has passed resolutions, and it has decried the killings, but it has not stopped them. Last month brought the welcome news that the Sudanese government had finally agreed once again, the deployment of a full-scale, joint peacekeeping operation by the United Nations and the African Union. But in the weeks since then, President al-Bashir has fallen into his old pattern of backpedaling away from his commitments, of accepting the mission but seeking to impose conditions, and of alternately agreeing to the troops and then recanting. President Bashir may be wavering, but the world must not. The resolution that we are introducing today expresses Congress's determination to move forward in support of this peacekeeping mission and reaffirms the minimum standards of this mission, which the Khartoum government must not be allowed to bargain away. It is critical that the United Nations and the African Union hold firm on the structure, capacity, command and control mechanisms, and mandate of the peacekeeping force. We cannot negotiate down on the force levels that are needed; this resolution supports the ongoing efforts at the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution authorizing approximately 20,000 peacekeeping troops and over 6000 police personnel. In addition to numbers, it is equally important that the mission have the mandate to protect Darfur's civilians and the means to carry out that mandate. All the resolutions in the world, however, will not save the people of Darfur if the international community does not contribute the forces and equipment that are needed for this peacekeeping mission. This resolution urges the member states of the United Nations to step up to volunteer the needed forces. It also urges the President to work with these countries and the African Union and NATO to expedite deployment. Together with our partners, we must ensure that the UN-AU force has the people and the equipment to do the job, including the air assets that will be needed to patrol an area that is the size of Texas but lacks both roads and infrastructure. We must also take steps to ensure humanitarian access and security for those bringing aid to the millions of people in Darfur who are in need. We cannot continue to allow attacks against humanitarian workers to take place with impunity. Our resolution also emphasizes that peacekeeping must be accompanied by a reinvigorated peace-building effort. Chaos and fragmentation are accelerating in Darfur by the day. Blue helmeted troops are not enough: Khartoum, the rebel groups, and leading nations like the U.S. must all work toward a lasting and inclusive peace agreement on the ground. I am committed to working with the administration to help secure the resources that are needed to fund this mission. If commitments for crucial equipment are not forthcoming, then the U.S. should help provide them--we have the best troops and the best equipment in the world and we must stand ready to assist this effort to bring four years of murder, rape, and destruction to an end. Finally, I will conclude as our resolution does: if Khartoum does not fulfill its part of the agreement and allow the full deployment of the peacekeeping mission, then the international community must impose multilateral sanctions, an expanded arms embargo, and a no fly zone over Darfur. The world stands at a critical moment: we must collectively assume our responsibility to protect the people of Darfur, either through the fulfillment of this peacekeeping mission or the imposition of meaningful countermeasures. Four years of killing are four years too many.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, so much has been said about the various parts of Lady Bird Johnson's life, as one of our most beloved First Ladies, as a loving mother and grandmother, as the mother of the conservation movement, and as a skilled businesswoman. But there is another aspect all of us in this body appreciate, and that is her mark on this Chamber. Before the Johnsons left Washington in January 1969, they came to the Capitol to say farewell. And the ever gracious Lady Bird Johnson, who had watched her husband serve as a Senator and a majority leader, said: When we say goodbye to Washington, the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was a small span of time for us in comparison to the years that we spent closely affiliated with this building. She knew how to use this building. She was the first First Lady to ever undertake a major legislative effort--the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Four decades later, her efforts still bloom on our highways in every region of this country, and in this city. She did what each of us, and all of us combined, come here to do-- leave America better than we found it. Her achievement is all the more remarkable because it was a trying period in our Nation's history. A President had been assassinated, we were divided by Vietnam, there were riots in our cities over desegregation. But she understood nature belongs to every single one of us, and we have an obligation to pay nature back. As President Johnson said, when he signed the law: There is a part of America which was here long before we arrived, and will be here, if we preserve it, long after we depart. As Mrs. Johnson departs, we thank her for her preservation. We thank her for lining every corner of the country with flowers that we all enjoy. And we thank her for teaching us that preservation and beauty go beyond the wildflowers, to the need to deal with pollution and urban decay and other problems that are too prevalent in our country and world today. Jill and I are thinking of her daughters, Lynda and Luci, their families--and, in particular, Senator Robb, who served this body so well.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 60 seconds.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will make a very detailed speech after this vote laying out why I think this vote is important. We started down this road, and we have been banging away since the Biden-Hagel-Levin-Snowe resolution back in January, to the Biden-Levin position, and now the Reed-Levin amendment, all of which are essentially the same thing. I want to make it clear that this is simply a first step. We have to keep from careening off this highway and get out of the civil war, and then we have to be in a position where we come up with a political solution so that when we leave Iraq and we bring our children home, we don't just send our grandchildren back. I thank my colleagues for giving me this time, and as I said, when the vote is over and there is more time, I will, as passionately as I can, try to clarify what I think the situation is that we find ourselves in in Iraq and what our overall policy--not just the Levin- Reed amendment but what else we must be doing. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague for his generosity, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes. I consulted with Senator Kennedy. I ask that my time be counted under reconciliation.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I share the frustration of my friend from Pennsylvania. I remember when my colleague, Senator Byrd, whom I still call the leader, was leader when I got here after Senator Mansfield. How things have changed in many ways. One of the things that has changed is what we saw take place today. Here the single most critical issue facing the United States of America today--the carnage that is taking place in Iraq, the fact that our blood and treasure is being spilled with no apparent end in sight--and the notion that we would have to resort to a filibuster to stop a vote when a clear majority of Senators who believe there is an urgent need to change course in Iraq is not only dismaying but the consequence of it, I believe, is to kick the can down the road another 2 to 3 months and, in the meantime, many Americans are going to be injured and killed, which I believe can be avoided. Ever since the Democrats took back the Congress, we have been working to build pressure on the administration and, quite frankly, a number of our Republican colleagues to change course in Iraq because I don't believe there are a dozen Republican Senators who agree with the President's present position. I don't believe there are a dozen Republican Senators who believe the results are going to be fundamentally different on September 5 than they are today, although I respect the fact that they concluded they want to wait to give the President every opportunity to demonstrate his plan can work. Here is the problem, with all due respect. The problem is we are faced with two false choices in the Congress. One is put forward by the administration and sustained by a minority of votes that says we should continue to do what we are doing and essentially hand off the problem to the next President. I don't know anybody who believes that through escalating this conflict, adding American forces, there is any reasonable prospect that would bring about the only thing that will end this war, and that is a political settlement among the Iraqis. Then there are a number of Democrats who have a view, out of frustration, that we must begin to get out of there, get out and hope for the best. Their premise is: Look, there isn't any reasonable prospect of us being able to do this militarily, and the hope is that somehow if we get out, the Iraqis, the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shias will have a bit of an epiphany, as we Catholics say, that they will get together and say: Oh, my goodness, America is leaving and we better get together and settle our differences or things are going to completely implode. The fundamental flaw in all of that thinking, in my humble opinion--I know I am like a broken record, I have been saying it for over 3 years and I laid out a concrete plan over a year ago--the fundamental flaw is there is no possibility in the lifetime of any Member of this Senate for there to be a coherent central government in Baghdad that has the ability to gain the faith and trust of the people of Iraq and the ability to govern that country. It will not happen. Mark my words. There is no possibility of that happening. Never, to my research, have I ever found there has been a situation where there has been a self- sustaining cycle of sectarian violence, a self-sustaining civil war, which is exactly what we have now in Iraq, that it has ever ended in any other than one of four ways: a major power goes in and occupies the country for a generation or more, not an option available for us, nor is it in our DNA to do that. We are not the British Empire; we are not the Ottoman Empire; we are not the Persian Empire; nor do we want to be. The second option is: Install a dictator. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony for the United States of America to install a dictator? The third option: Pick a side. Wage in on one side of the sectarian violence, wipe out the other side. That is not a good option. A, it would be immoral; B, it would take a couple years and; C, it would ignite a Sunni-Shia revolution from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas. There is a fourth way it can end, and that is establish a federal system within the country separating the parties, giving them control of the fabric of their daily lives, their own security forces in their own neighborhoods, their own laws relating to religion, education, marriage, divorce, property, jobs, a federal system. Coincidentally, that is exactly what the Iraqi Constitution calls for in article I. It says: We are a decentralized federal system. Absent a political settlement, there is no way--I will make the prediction I shouldn't make because I have been around here long enough to know that everything you say on this floor you are reminded of if you turn out to be wrong. If you are right, you are never reminded of it. If you turn out to be wrong, you are reminded of it whether it is 6 months, 12 months or 12 years later. I honestly believe, absent a radical change in course resulting in a federal system existing in Iraq, the only option the next President of the United States is going to have is going to be a reenactment of the scene in Saigon, with helicopters lifting people off the roofs of the embassy in the green zone. That is how it is going to end, in disaster. Not only do I not want my son who is a captain in the U.S. National Guard going to Iraq, I don't want my grandson going or my granddaughter. How we leave Iraq, what shape we leave it in, what prospect for a political settlement exists will determine whether my grandson goes back 15 years from now. All we did today was take what was originally called the Biden-Hagel, et cetera, resolution that we introduced in January, then the Biden- Levin resolution, then the Levin-Reed-Biden, et al, now the Levin-Reed amendment. They all do the same thing. There is not a dime's worth of difference. What they all said was this: Mr. President, the first thing you do when you are in a hole is stop digging; stop digging us deeper into this disaster. Cease and desist from placing our troops in the midst of a civil war. We are in the midst of a civil war. The ``success'' we are having in Anbar Province, what is it doing? It is making the Shia conclude we are arming and engaging with the Sunnis and the former Baathists, making it harder for us to get the Shia to agree to action on the oil law, which would be the thing to get the Sunnis to buy into a united Iraq. We are in the midst of a civil war, and the whole thesis of the idea we came forward with as early as January and we voted on again today is to say: Get out of that civil war. Use American forces for only three express purposes: One, train the Iraqi Army; two, deny al-Qaida occupation of large swaths of territory, particularly in Anbar Province; and three, protect our diplomats there. I say to my colleagues in the Senate, last week we heard President Bush give a progress report on Iraq. It reminded me of a guy who jumps off a 100-story building and as he passes the 50th floor, somebody yells out: How's it going? And he yells back: So far so good. That is the summary of the President's report, except it is not even going well so far and the outcome is absolutely certain: continued disaster. Also, last week, Bob Woodward revealed that back in November, CIA Director Michael Hayden made the very point I have been making for 2 years in a private meeting with the Iraqi Study Group. He said: The inability of the central Government to govern is irreversible. There is ``no milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around.'' The CIA then went on to say: We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government . . . that cannot function. What more do we need? I ask my colleagues, what more do you need? Our own intelligence community has been saying since last November that the inability of the central government to govern is irreversible-- irreversible. Nothing has happened since General Hayden made his remarks to change that assessment. The time now is to stop digging that hole, redeploy our forces, save American lives, and begin to push a political settlement. I conclude by saying that yesterday's release of the unclassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate on ``The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland'' highlights the urgency of changing our course in Iraq. The so-called NIE is a devastating indictment of the administration's failure to accomplish its most important mission-- destroying al-Qaida and the threat it poses. It confirms what was reported last week, that the al-Qaida we failed to finish off in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because we went into Iraq, has ``regenerated,'' and it remains intent on attacking us at home. That should put to rest once and for all this administration's false refrain that we are fighting over there so we don't have to fight them over here. That is rubbish. Our own intelligence, the NIE--that is all the intelligence agencies in the U.S. Government--have come to a consensus position. It spotlights the danger posed by al-Qaida in Iraq, a group independent but now affiliated with al-Qaida of bin Laden. Al-Qaida in Iraq is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. I will say it again. Al-Qaida in Iraq is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It did not exist in Iraq prior to our invasion. But the failed policies, failure to deal with an administrative policy, a political solution, what it does now is to help al-Qaida energize extremists around the world, raise money for new recruits, and become stronger. All the more reason we must act now to refocus our energy and resources on al-Qaida and start to get our troops out of Iraq's civil war, while limiting the mission of those who remain to denying al-Qaida in Iraq a safe haven. Finally, I say to my colleagues, regardless of one's view on the war and how to end it, there is one commitment each and every one of us should make. That commitment is so long as there is a single--a single--American troop in Iraq--a single American troop in Iraq--that we should do all that is needed to give them the best possible protection this country can provide, and the way to start with that is to replace the humvees with these mine-resistant vehicles that in our last supplemental I was able to convince our colleagues to add 1.7 billion more dollars to build them. These vehicles have a V-shaped hull and they can reduce casualties from roadside bombs up to 80 percent. Right now, 70 percent of all the casualties taking place in Iraq is because of roadside bombs. I will offer an amendment to the Defense bill when we get to it to make clear, with absolutely no ambiguity, that Congress will provide every single dollar needed and every authority necessary to build these vehicles as quickly as possible because our kids are dying, and it can radically reduce the number of casualties. I conclude by saying our Republican colleagues say--all of whom I respect, but the one I particularly respect is Senator Lugar--that they expect the President to voluntarily change course. I have absolutely no faith, none whatsoever, in this President to voluntarily do what should be done. The only way it is going to happen is when our Republican friends stop voting with the President and start voting to end this war by supporting our troops. I yield the floor.