Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Marine Corps 2LT Seth Pierce of Lincoln, NE. Lieutenant Pierce died on October 21 from injuries he sustained in an automobile accident on base at Quantico, VA, where he was stationed. He was 23 years old. Lieutenant Pierce graduated from Lincoln Southeast High School in 2002, where he led the relay team to a State championship in 2001. After graduating from Arizona State University in 2006, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant into the U.S. Marine Corps. All of Nebraska is proud of Lieutenant Pierce's service to our country, as well as that of the thousands of brave men and women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Lieutenant Pierce is remembered as a devoted son, brother, and grandson. He is survived by his parents Larry and Linda; his brother Aaron, and his grandparents, Edwin and Ruth Steffens, and Luther and Esther Pierce. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring 2LT Seth Pierce.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of the DREAM Act, introduced by Senators Durbin, Lugar, and myself. Each year, thousands of hard-working students who graduate from American high schools are unable to attend college or serve in the military because of their illegal immigration status. These young people were brought to the United States by adults who were breaking the law. In America, we have never held children responsible for their parents' sins. It is not the habit of the United States to punish children for the actions of their parents. Let's not start now. Many have been in our country nearly their entire lives, and most have received their primary education here. They contribute to their communities and our country by earning higher education or serving in the Armed Forces. It is in our national interest that they be given the opportunity to do so. These young people were forced into an unfortunate position, which have made them outcasts in our society, yet they have proven their potential and ambition by meeting the several requirements necessary to be eligible under the DREAM Act for legal status. We need more young people to contribute to our country, not less. The DREAM Act would make it possible to bring these young people out of shadows and give them the opportunity to contribute, work, and pay taxes--giving back to the communities in which they were raised. The DREAM Act is not amnesty. It is a narrowly tailored piece of legislation that would help only a limited, select group of young people earn legal status. This is not an incentive for more illegal immigrants to enter our country. To be eligible for legal status under the DREAM Act, you must have good moral character, have graduated from an American high school, entered the country under the age of 15, and have been in the United States for at least 5 years. There is an end date to the DREAM Act. The current system punishes children for the mistakes of their parents. The DREAM Act will provide a legal path for undocumented students to pursue the American dream based on their own accomplishments and hard work. Immigration is a very complicated and difficult issue, for many reasons. Partly because we have deferred this issue for years. We have refused to take a responsible position on all the different aspects of immigration reform--inc1uding the DREAM Act. Obviously border security is the core, the beginning of immigration reform. I am not aware of any Senator who has questioned or contested that point. In July, the Senate approved $3 billion in funding for border security and immigration enforcement--totaling $40.6 billion in overall funding for homeland security. From fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 2006, the budget for the Border Patrol has tripled from $362 million to $1.6 billion. That is not the debate. The debate, of course, resides around the difficult issues, the 11 to 12 million illegals now in this country. The debate elicits great and deep emotions and passion--and it should. We were sent here to deal with the great challenges of our time, to resolve the issues, find solutions, not go halfway. That is leadership. Currently, we have provided no leadership for the American people. We have not had the courage to deal with it because it is political, because it is emotional, because it cuts across every sector and every line of our society. It is about national security. It is about autonomy and our future. It is about our society, our schools, our hospitals. That is difficult. Who are we helping with the current situation that we have today? People stay in the shadows, we don't collect taxes, we don't have the complete involvement in communities that we have always had from our immigrants. There is a national security element to this. There is a law enforcement element to it, and there is certainly an economic element to it. Are we really winning? No, we are losing. We are losing everywhere. You can take pieces of each and pick and choose which might make you more comfortable politically, but it doesn't work that way. It is all wrapped into the same enigma. It is woven into the same fabric. That is what we are dealing with. It is leadership to take on the tough issues. Immigration is one of those issues which tests and defines a society. It tests and defines a country. And the precious glue that has been indispensable in holding this country together for over 200 years has been common interests and mutual respect. I don't know of an issue that is facing our country today that is more important, that is framed in that precious glue concept more precisely than this issue. Crafting something for the future, for our history, for our children, and for our society--that is what it is about.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of United States Army PFC Christopher Pfeifer of Nebraska. Private First Class Pfeifer died on September 25 from injuries he sustained near Kamu, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his unit on August 17. He was 21 years old. Private First Class Pfeifer grew up in the small town of Spalding, NE, where he played eight-man football at Spalding Academy, as well as the drums in the band. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 91st Cavalry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Schweinfurt, Germany. All the flags in Spalding, a town of about 600 people, are at half-mast in honor of Private First Class Pfeifer. Private First Class Pfeifer is remembered as a devoted husband, son, and brother. Sadly, he was denied the chance to become a proud father; his wife Karen gave birth to a baby girl the day after his death. All of Nebraska is proud of Private First Class Pfeifer's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to his wife and newborn daughter, he is survived by his parents, Mike and Dar, his brother Aaron, and his sister Nicki. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring PFC Christopher Pfeifer.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge my friend, the junior Senator from Virginia, and also recognize his leadership, not just on this issue that he has framed over the last few minutes on which the Senate will be voting, as we did in July, but his years of contributions to this country--specifically his efforts on behalf of our military. I think most of us recognize the distinguished record of Senator Jim Webb, that service to his country. We appreciate that, and in particular his leadership on this amendment is important. Senator Webb and I wrote this amendment many months ago. We introduced it on the floor of the Senate in July. We received 56 bipartisan votes for it. As Senator Webb has noted in his explanation of what this amendment does, it is relevant to our Armed Forces, to our country, and to our future. I wish to take a little time to expand on a couple of the points Senator Webb has made. First, a democracy of 300 million people, the greatest democracy in the world, the oldest living democracy in the world, finds itself in a situation today where we are asking about 1 percent of our citizens to carry all the burden, make all the sacrifices. We will be dealing with this issue for many years to come, because the consequences of what has been going on are that we are doing great damage to our military force structure, great damage to our Army and our Marines. Senator Webb noted some examples. These are not isolated episodes. The fact is, you cannot grind down your people, you cannot grind down your force structure as we have been doing to our force structure over the last years--redeployment after redeployment, and longer and longer deployments. We know, because our generals and admirals tell us, that this will come to an end sometime next spring, the rate of redeployments. Why is that the case? That is the case because we can't sustain the force structure we have assigned in Iraq today. It is not because I say it or Senator Webb says it, but our professional military leaders say it. It doesn't do us much good to go back and review the mistakes we have made over the last 5 years, first when we invaded and occupied a country. The fact is, we never had enough force structure in that country. Many Senators, including the distinguished ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, our friend John McCain, noted that. He still talks about it, as many of us do. This administration refused to take the counsel of the then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Eric Shinseki, when he, in open hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked the question: What will it take, General, to invade, occupy, and help stabilize Iraq? He said it would take hundreds of thousands of American forces. He was right. He was right. But this administration chose not to listen to the Chief of Staff of the Army, who knew far more about the details of manpower requirements than anyone in the White House. We are not going to go back and unwind all that series of bad decisions. We are where we are, and we are in a mess in Iraq today by any dynamic, any measurement, any qualifications. We heard about that, I think in some detail, as we probed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker's testimony last week--two distinguished Americans. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are two of our best. But the military doesn't set policy. The civilian leadership sets policy. So we hand that off to the military. They salute; they say, Yes, sir. Now, you go implement the policy. What we are addressing in this amendment is not only a basic component of fairness in how you treat your people--because, after all, as we know, it is people who represent the greatest resource of an institution, of a country, of a society. When you grind those people down to a point where they just cannot be effective, but when the morale is gone, when they leave the institution as we are seeing happen in the Army and Marines, when you are 15,000 short of Army captains and lieutenant colonels and majors, and senior enlisted, and story after story--every Senator in this body can relate these specific stories like I had in my office yesterday. A Marine Corps officer, couple of years in Iraq, 14 years in the Marines, got out. He loved the Marines. It pulled his heart out to leave the Marines. I said, Why did you leave? He said, Sir, I tried to balance my family life. The last time I got back from Iraq my youngest daughter said, Daddy, I am going to tape you to the refrigerator so you don't have to leave again. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said in his confirmation hearing a few months ago, and I quote from Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: I am concerned about the number of deployments, the time when they're home--in fact, even when they are home, there's training associated with that, so they spend weeks, if not months, out of their own house, again, away from their families, and I believe we've got to relieve that. That is the end of the quote from the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So, are we really asking so much here when we say that our brave fighting men and women, who are bearing all the burden, carrying all the sacrifice for this country, that 1 percent of our society, that we say they ought to have at least the same amount of downtime off as they serve in a war zone in combat? Is that outrageous? We in this town are very good at abstractions. We talk about policies. We act like moving men and brigades in combat--that somehow this is a chess game. Somehow these people are objects. No, humanity is always the underlying dynamic of the world and life and it always will be. As Senator Webb has often said: Who speaks for the military? The National spokesmen. Their leaders are appointed by the President. They have spokesmen, they are Governors, if no one else. But who speaks for the rifleman? Who speaks for the people whom we ask to go fight and die and their families? Now, let's be very clear about another issue. As Senator Webb has noted, this certainly is within the constitutional authority and responsibility of the Congress of the United States. Senator Webb said article I of the Constitution is about the Congress. Section 8 of the Constitution, in article I, speaks specifically to Congress's responsibilities. We can have disagreements about policies and strategies, and that is appropriate, should be, absolutely, in a democracy. But let's not be confused about our responsibilities as well. The fact is, as General Shinseki warned us in his comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee before we invaded Iraq, that it would take hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. What has happened is we have a mission that does not match our manpower capabilities. So what is this administration's answer? Keep grinding down the people out there who have been fighting and dying. Keep grinding them down more because we do not have any choice. Are you going to suit the Boy Scouts up on the weekends? Where is the manpower going to come from? So the easy answer is-- because who speaks for the rifleman? Who speaks for the military? You keep asking them to do more. You keep pushing more down on them. By the way, the so-called surge the President of the United States announced to America in January--by the way, I do not find the term ``surge'' in any military manuals. Surge is not a policy, it is not a strategy, it is a tactic. But the President said: This is temporary. That escalation of troops, that 30,000 more troops on top of the 130,000 troops they already had over there, that is temporary. Because we are going to buy time for the Iraqi Government to find an accommodation so there can be political reconciliation. In the end, that is all that counts. As General Petraeus and everybody, every one of our great generals has said, there is no military solution in Iraq. General Petraeus and every general has said that. They know it better than anyone knows it. The only solution in Iraq is going to come from, must come from, some political accommodation resulting in a political reconciliation. So let's buy more time, let's grind those guys down more. Well, it will automatically come to some kind of an end. But in the process, what are we doing to our society, to our country, to our Armed Forces, that is going to take years to rebuild, just as General Schwarzkopf and General Powell and other great generals after Vietnam, they stayed in the military and rebuilt the military after what we had done to it during Vietnam. This is a very modest step forward, of clear thinking. This is relevant. It is rational. This has at least a modicum of humanity in it. If we do not take these steps, the consequences we are going to continue to face are going to be severe. I know the questions, the concerns on the other side of this issue are appropriate. Is this not a back-door way of trying to micromanage the war, micromanage our force structure? Well, the fact is, as I have already noted, we have inverted the logic. In order to carry out a mission or a policy or strategy, you have to match the resources for that. Those resources were never matched to that mission. So the easy answer for all of us in Washington, and 99 percent of the American people, is: Well, let those guys over there do more. So we have 15-month deployments, in some cases they are 18-month deployments, in some cases they are longer than that. So what if they go over there three times. That is not a good enough answer. That is a failed answer. That is irresponsible. So I hope our colleagues take a hard look at this, and I hope they would give some intense thought to what we are doing, not only for the immediate term but for the long term. This is essential for our country. This has ramifications, societal implications that go far beyond our force structure. I am very honored to be the original cosponsor and coauthor of this amendment with my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Virginia. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to express my sympathy over the loss of United States Army CPT Scott Shimp of Nebraska. Captain Shimp was killed in a military helicopter crash during a training exercise in northeastern Alabama on September 11. He was 28 years old. Captain Shimp grew up in the small town of Bayard, NE. A 1998 graduate and salutatorian of his class at Bayard High School, he also played football, ran track, sang in the choir, and was an Eagle Scout. It was his lifelong dream to serve his country in the U.S. military. I had the privilege of nominating Captain Shimp to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. In 2002 he graduated as part of the first post- September 11 class. Captain Shimp served two tours of duty in Iraq and was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan in 2009. He was company commander of Company C, 4th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division. We are proud of Captain Shimp's service to our country, as well as the thousands of brave Americans serving in the Armed Forces. Our sympathies are with his parents, Curtis and Teri Shimp; his brother Chad; and his sister Misty. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring CPT Scott Shimp.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. Presdient, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Navy Petty Officer First Class Jeffrey Chaney of Omaha, NE. Petty Officer First Class Chaney was killed on July 17 by an improvised explosive device in Salah Ad Din Province, Iraq. He was 35 years old. Petty Officer First Class Chaney graduated from Bellevue West High School in 1990. He enlisted in the Navy in 1993 and spent 4 years of his 14-year Navy career as a recruiter. Petty Officer First Class Chaney's passion for serving his country made him a strong recruiter. He was even able to recruit his brother Randy Chaney to the Navy. Petty Officer First Class Chaney was assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 11, based at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA. His experience with ordnance disposal led to other experiences. He worked with Secret Service for President George H.W. Bush's 80th birthday celebration in 2004, where he met the former President and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. He also assisted Secret Service with security during the 2004 Presidential election and met both President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. Petty Officer First Class Chaney had been in Iraq for two months. We are proud of Petty Officer First Class Chaney's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq. In addition to his brother Randy, Petty Officer First Class Chaney is survived by his daughter Brianna Chaney of Omaha, his father Larry Chaney of Bloomington, MN, his mother Connie Chaney of Omaha, and brother Jim Ecker of Oakland, IA. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Petty Officer First Class Jeffrey Chaney. Sergeant Jacob Schmuecker Mr. President, I also rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army National Guard SGT Jacob Schmuecker of Norfolk, NE. Sergeant Schmuecker was killed on July 21 by an improvised explosive device in Balad, Iraq. He was 27 years old. Sergeant Schmuecker graduated from West Holt High School in 1999, where he was a linebacker and defensive end on the football team. He attended Northeast Community College before he joined the Nebraska Army National Guard in 2001 as a member of the 134th Infantry Detachment in Lincoln, NE. He was mobilized for service in Iraq in August 2006 with the Nebraska National Guard's 755th Reconnaissance and Decontamination Company based in O'Neill, NE. Sergeant Schmuecker was a model leader. He had a strong concern for the men that he led and hoped that if anything were to happen, that it would happen to him. He inspired his brother Chris Shepperd to enlist and he would go on to serve in Iraq as well. We are proud of Sergeant Schmuecker's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq. Sergeant Schmuecker is survived by his wife Lisa and their three children, his parents Rodney and Patricia Schmuecker, three brothers, and three sisters. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SGT Jacob Schmuecker.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to support the Levin- Reed amendment. As we know, Iraq is the most important issue facing our country today. The core challenge in Iraq is the cycle of violence, despair, and retribution that is tearing Iraq apart and threatening wider regional instability. There is no significant progress in Iraq. By any measurement, the situation in Iraq is getting worse as each week passes. Prime Minister al-Maliki's Government is essentially paralyzed and dysfunctional, in part by boycotts and sectarian rivalries and an intense sectarian war. The Interior Ministry in Iraq, which controls Iraq's police forces, is still a disaster and does not function as a national ministry. Horrific violence in Iraq is spreading beyond Baghdad. Yesterday, car bombs and attacks in Kirkuk and Diyala Province killed more than 100 and injured almost 200 Iraqis. Kirkuk is an area of Iraq in the northern part, Kurdistan, that has been considered by this administration as one of the most secure areas of Iraq. Recent events in Kurdistan over the last few months have shown otherwise. Increasingly, regions that were previously seen as relatively stable and secure, such as the Kurdish area, are now being engulfed by violence. The southern four provinces in Iraq near Basra, which contains most of Iraq's oil and Iraq's only port and outlet to the sea, are out of control. Shiite militias control the southern four provinces of Iraq, including the most significant oil reserves in Iraq's one outlet to the sea. Shiite militias and criminal gangs control these provinces and today even demand tribute, and we pay it. The Iraqi Government pays tribute to Shia militias to use Iraq's primary port. The last remaining pipeline into Baghdad has been blown up, crippling Baghdad's access to oil, and there are no operating refineries in Baghdad. Hence, the product that comes to Baghdad today is trucked in from Kuwait. This is the nation that has the third largest oil reserves in the world. The green zone is being attacked daily. Last week, 9 people were killed, including Americans, and over 30 wounded inside the green zone. These daily attacks on the green zone by mortar fire, rocket fire increase. I have listened today to some of my colleagues argue that the surge strategy--the surge strategy--has only just begun; why don't we give it a chance to work; we are at a very early stage; we must give the President more time. Let me remind our colleagues it has been more than 6 months since the President of the United States announced to the Nation on January 10 the decision to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops into Iraq. That was the beginning of the surge, not now. It has been more than 5 months since these additional U.S. troops began arriving in Iraq in early February. We have had months to judge the situation in Iraq. Only last week, the President reported to Congress that there has been no progress--no progress--on any of the political benchmarks in Iraq. The violence that is tearing Iraq apart has intensified and spread over the last 6 months. The current strategy is failing, and the so-called surge that some of my colleagues refuse to recognize that began almost 6 months ago has cost 532 American men and women their lives since that began. We have lost more than 3,600 Americans who have died and over 26,000 wounded over the last 4\1/2\ years. We must change our policy in Iraq. Central to our new strategy must be diplomacy, regional engagement, and the involvement of the international community, all of these coming together within the framework of a new policy, using all of the instruments of power to help achieve Iraqi political accommodation-- political accommodation. We are captive to a cycle of violence. We cannot break out of the cycle of violence. More troops will not do that. We have put burdens on our troops and asked them to make sacrifices and do things they cannot achieve in the course of finding an answer to break the cycle of violence. It is bigger than the military. General Petraeus has said so. As a matter of fact, General Petraeus has said there will be no military solution in Iraq. Every general I have met in my five trips to Iraq, every general I have met here in and out of uniform, has said there will not be--cannot be--a military solution. I have cosponsored the Levin-Reed amendment because it requires that the United States move toward a comprehensive policy on Iraq--a comprehensive policy on Iraq--not just continuing to feed American troops into the middle of a civil war, which is clearly not working, but something in addition to our military security. That new policy must be centered on diplomacy and helping achieve Iraqi political accommodation to get to political reconciliation. This amendment is responsible. It is comprehensive, forward-looking, compelling, and not all that different, incidentally, from what my other colleagues are offering on the floor of the Senate as options. Yes, it requires a phased, responsible reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq. I say again, a reduction--not a withdrawal--of our forces. No one I know is calling for any sort of precipitous withdrawal or precipitous action to take America out of Iraq now. We couldn't do that anyway. Even if we wanted to withdraw precipitously or quickly, the reality of the logistics would prevent it. The fact is, we are where we are. We have national interests in the Middle East. We have national interests in Iraq. We should not confuse the issue that we debate today. We are not advocating a cut-and-run strategy. I am not sure what cut and run means. It is catchy. It is good sloganeering. But I have yet to hear anyone come to the Senate floor and say: I am for cutting and running. Those who use that term or accuse others of employing that term should define what that means. Of all the resolutions I am aware of that have been introduced in the Senate on this issue, none that I am aware of is a so-called cut-and- run amendment. We are talking about a transition in the mission being carried out by U.S. forces in Iraq. A policy, a strategy. Let's make something else clear. The military does not make policy. The military implements policy. The Congress is part of making that policy. Constitutionally we have a role with the President in helping frame and make policy. The military has input into that policy, as they must and as they should, but once the policy is given to the military, they can't alter the policy. They are captive to policy. That is constitutionally the way it is and the way it should be. We are talking about a new policy, a new strategy. We have a legitimate mission to carry out in Iraq, and those various missions are critical to our security, and hopefully, at some point, the stability of Iraq. The Levin-Reed amendment focuses solely on those missions and the transitions of those missions: Counterterrorism, targeting terrorists and other global organizations; training Iraqi forces, protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and facilities, helping maintain territorial integrity of Iraq. As I have said, nearly all of the other significant amendments I am aware of that have been introduced on the floor of the Senate on Iraq, including the Warner-Lugar amendment, the Salazar-Alexander amendment focused largely on the same limited mission, as the Levin-Reed amendment, as does the Nelson-Collins amendment, on a limited mission. There is an emerging consensus on how our military mission should transition in Iraq as well. Our amendment includes a timeline and would require that this shift in our military mission be completed by April 30 of next year. Our amendment is not alone in establishing a timeline. Again, the other significant amendments on Iraq also have timelines. The Warner- Lugar amendment recommends beginning the military transition no later than December 31, 2007. That is a timeline. The Salazar-Alexander amendment sets as the sense of the Congress that the transition be completed by the first quarter of 2008. Now, that is a timeline. There is yet another emerging consensus on establishing a timeline to transition our military mission in Iraq. Our amendment also respects that only military professionals--the generals, those who have the responsibility of carrying out the policy; not making the policy, but carrying it out--those professionals determine how many troops will be needed to carry out our limited military mission in Iraq. So the talk I hear more than occasionally on the Senate floor that somehow the Congress is micromanaging the war is not correct; that we are micromanaging the army is not correct. Once again, our amendment, the Levin-Reed amendment, sets policy of the military mission in Iraq. That is policy. What is the mission? What is the strategic, diplomatic mission of employing America's power and prestige in Iraq? That is the policy. But the scope of the reduction-- the reduction, not the withdrawal but the reduction--of U.S. forces in Iraq will be determined by, and needs to be determined by, our military professionals based on a troop-to-task analysis; not the Congress, not the committees telling the generals how to do anything. Troop to task is a very simple concept. You connect the requirements of your mission with the force structure needed. We are way out of balance. We have been out of balance since we invaded Iraq in March of 2003. We never had enough force structure. Some of the same people on the floor of the Senate who are now saying: Well, let's listen to the generals, where were they when the generals warned this administration that we didn't have enough men and women and force before we went into Iraq, I didn't hear many of them talking about how much faith we should put in our generals then. The former Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General Shinseki, said it. He said it openly in the Presiding Officer's Armed Services Committee. When asked the question: What would it take in manpower to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help stabilize and secure Iraq, General Shinseki said: It would take hundreds of thousands of American troops. This administration completely dismissed that as wildly--I believe as the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the time said--wildly off the mark. Well, he wasn't off the mark, I say to my colleagues. He was exactly right. He was exactly right. So we have never had the forces to match the mission. That is not new. Some of us may be coming to that conclusion for the first time, but it is not new. We have never had the force structure to match the mission. That is not the fault of the generals. That is not the fault of the military. That is the fault of policymakers. Our amendment also respects that only military professionals can determine those numbers. The scope of the reduction would stay firmly in the hands of the military professionals. This approach is responsible. Not one U.S. general today will tell you that there can be, there will be, there is a military solution in Iraq. Then the next question is--and a statement being made often on the floor of the Senate is: Well, we need to buy the Iraqis time. We need to give the Maliki government time. That is true. That is why we have benchmarks. That is why we have some sense of where this is going? Are we making progress or not making progress? Is it getting better or is it getting worse? Now, 4\1/2\ years into this, we should have some measurements of giving the government time, but time for what? What is the end game as more Americans sacrifice their lives and a half trillion dollars of America's taxpayers' money has sunk into the sands of Iraq? We are buying time for what? For a political reconciliation brought about by the Iraqis themselves to be able to functionally govern their country with some sense of stability and security. That is going the other way. That hasn't gotten better; it has gotten worse by every measure. So we continue to buy time with American blood and American treasure, for what? For what? No one wants to answer that question, by the way. We end it with we have to buy time, but the additional part of that equation is: Buy time for what? Do we buy time for another 2, 3, or 4 years? It is also clear that the generals have said when April comes, and there is a timeline already that is built in--whether we ever deal with it or not in the Congress--there is a timeline built in, and it is called manpower. It is called deployment rotations. We are pushing our young men and women now to 18-month rotation, and some, by the way, are longer than that because of what is known as a stopgap measure where the Secretary of Defense can stop anyone from leaving a war zone based on the speciality of his or her MOS or job. So we are actually having people stay there longer than 18 months. But now it is 18 months, even though the Secretary of Defense testified in January before the Senate Armed Services Committee that we need to get back to 12 months. Senator Webb and I and others, a bipartisan group of Senators / last week had two amendments on that issue. We couldn't get the required 60 votes to go back to a 12-month deployment. So now it is 15 months, and we are pushing even 18 months. The generals have told us that when this spring comes, there is no more give in those deployment rotations. There is nothing left. So there is a timeline built in already. Whether any of us want to acknowledge that or introduce that, that is a reality. Any change to policy in Iraq cannot be done in isolation, separate or disconnected, from the broader sense of dynamics in Iraq and the Middle East. That is why this amendment requires a phased reduction be conducted as part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement to Iraq's neighbors and the international community. I am very pleased to note that today the announcement came from the State Department that the United States is now prepared to hold new direct talks with Iran. That is progress, not because Iran wants to be our friend. Of course not. But Iran is a significant power in the Middle East. It is working against our interests in the Middle East. We must engage Iran. I have been calling for dialog with all Middle East nations, including Iran and Syria, or over 3 years. A constructive regional framework for Iraq can only be achieved through sustained diplomacy, not hit or miss, not ``if we have time.'' A vital element of this comprehensive diplomatic strategy must be to internationalize Iraq through an international mediator under the auspices of the U.N. to engage all of Iraq's political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders. I first called for an international mediator in a letter to President Bush in May. Since then, I pressed this issue with Secretary Rice last week, our National Security Adviser, Steve Hadley, 2 weeks ago, and again today with the United Nations Secretary General. It is time to take the American face off Iraq's political process. The United States is seen as the occupier in Iraq. We must have a new strategy that will further invest the region and the rest of the world to helping stabilize Iraq, reversing Iraq's slide into chaos. And it is chaos, Mr. President. I hear on the floor of the Senate, gee, if we changed our mission, if we moved in any different direction, if we reduced our forces, if we did anything different, Iraq would end in chaos. Some of my colleagues must not understand what is going on in Iraq. We have chaos. We have real chaos in Iraq today. That means there are no good options today. The optics here should be clear, and we should base our new policies and our new strategies on those clear optics that Iraq is in chaos today. Creating an international mediator would help build some new common interests in the region and in the world. This amendment represents the core elements of a different U.S. strategy for Iraq, a strategy that more accurately understands the grim realities we face today, that we will face at the end of this year, that we will face next spring, and we will face next year. The question is whether the President and Congress will come together to present a new policy for Iraq that can be supported by the American people and protect and advance America's interests in Iraq and the Middle East. We are coming dangerously close to the moment when the American people will demand that we leave Iraq and pullout of the Middle East. Almost 70 percent of the American people today, by every measurement, say enough is enough. This is not in the U.S. interest nor the world's to leave Iraq that way. That is why the United States needs a new strategy for Iraq now. Well into our fifth year in Iraq, we are beyond nonbinding language of resolutions. We are beyond calling for new plans or new reports. We are beyond sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. We have to understand where we are today. We are in a very dangerous position in Iraq. Our policy in Iraq has been a disaster. Why are we kidding ourselves otherwise? By any measurement, it is a disaster. It must change now. The time for suggestions is over. If we do not believe our current policy is worthy of the sacrifices being made by our troops, then it is wrong to simply say we will wait until this fall to change course or let's hang on for 2 or 3 more months to see what happens. We know what is happening. We know what is happening today, we know what has been happening, and we know what is going to happen tomorrow. I am grateful for the opportunity to express myself on this amendment. I also appreciate the opportunity to cosponsor this responsible amendment with my colleagues. I note again it is a bipartisan amendment, and I hope all my colleagues in the Senate will take a look at all the different options and amendments and spend some time on each because they are each worthy of time, but in the end, the consistency of the amendments that have been presented so far are about one thing, and you can paint it any way you want, but that is a change of mission in Iraq and a new policy in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SPC Dustin Workman II of Greenwood, NE. Specialist Workman was killed on June 28 by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad. He was 19 years old. Specialist Workman graduated from Ashland-Greenwood High School in 2005. Faculty at Ashland-Greenwood remember his talent for writing and his love of books, though not necessarily the ones assigned to him, his skill in mechanical working, and most importantly, his hard work and commitment to finishing school. From the time he was a freshman at Ashland-Greenwood, Specialist Workman's teachers noticed a strong desire to serve in the Army. Specialist Workman enlisted with the Army and served with B Company, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Carson, CO. We are proud of Specialist Workman's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq. Specialist Workman is survived by his parents Dustin and Valerie, younger brother Korey, and younger sister Krysta. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SPC Dustin Workman II.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. How much time do we have?

Mr. HAGEL. And the other side?

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I wish to follow along with what my distinguished colleague from Virginia was addressing and that is the difference between the two amendments that are before the Senate. I will address the Graham resolution first. I think therein lies the most significant difference between the Graham amendment and the Hagel amendment. The Graham amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The Hagel amendment is a piece of legislation that, if enacted, would have the force of law. I wish to also address an issue that has developed some credibility in this debate in the last 2 days and that is that Congress has no role in this. I have heard some of my colleagues talk about micromanaging the war and micromanaging the Defense Department. We do have a Constitution. If you look at article I of the Constitution, section 8, I will read a sentence or two from that regarding the issue of what the role of the Congress is. Certainly, I think most everybody knows that only the Congress can declare war and raise money for our Armed Forces. More to the point, it says Congress has the responsibility ``to make Rules for the Government and Regulations of the land and naval Forces.'' That would certainly include the Army and Marines. ``To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union . . . ; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia. . . .'' And it goes on. I hope we can lay to rest this issue of somehow the Congress is mucking around in someone else's business. I don't believe so. I suppose we could dispense with congressional action and abolish the Congress, and some people would find that more effective and efficient. Until we change the Constitution, I doubt that is going to happen. We do have a responsibility for our Armed Forces. As I said earlier, who does look out for the rifleman, for the men and women whom we ask to bear all the burden, make all the sacrifices, do the fighting, and do the dying? They tell me this is an abstraction, that we don't have any role here. Come on. A colleague said recently in this debate that the war is unpopular. Of course, it is. Why is it unpopular? Because Congress is mucking around in this? No, I think just the opposite. The war is unpopular because our policy is not working in Iraq. We are ruining our military over Iraq. Just as General Petraeus has said before our committee, there will be no military solution in Iraq. I think most of us understand that only a political accommodation, only a political reconciliation is going to work Iraq toward some sense of stability, some sense of security. But yet we keep pushing the military out there, pushing the military out there, let them do it, let them do it, as we ruin our military. Of course, the Congress has a very important and significant responsibility and role in this debate. I remind everyone what has happened to our military because of what we are doing. One other point. What is more important in a free society? Is an abstract policy more important than our people, more important than our marines and our soldiers? They are our most precious and important resource. Our amendment, this bipartisan amendment, gives the President waiver authority if the President believes it is in the national interest, it is a national emergency to change this policy. He has that authority. We don't micromanage. We don't tie his hands. If we listen to some of this debate, a 12-month deployment in Iraq is outrageously simple and easy and that somehow we are incurring on the President's power and the power of the Secretary of Defense to do that. That actually used to be the policy. I know it is outrageous to ask these people to only spend 12 months, that 15 months, 18 months is better, plus two, three, four tours is good. Yes, Congress has a role in this effort and this is what our amendment does. We include the Army National Guard. We include the Army Reserve. We include the Marines. In the end, as we look at the full and complete dynamic picture of Iraq and what we are asking out of these men and women in uniform, then some semblance of common sense, some semblance of decency in how we treat our people is required. Today our force capability does not match our mission. We are destroying our military. We are overburdening our military. We are burning out the circuits of our military, not because they are not good and professional and doing everything we tell them and ask of them. Of course, they are. But they can't do this alone. As General Petraeus has said, there will be no military solution to Iraq. Of course. We need a policy worthy of these men and women whom we ask to fight and die for this country. Today this policy is not there. This is beginning to change that policy. I hope our colleagues will look seriously at this amendment and understand the very significant differences between the Hagel-Levin amendment versus the Graham-Kyl amendment. There are differences. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, the distinguished chairman is correct. He said that in open hearings before the Congress--I believe, in fact, before the Senator's committee.

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, that is another reason the amendments are clearly different and the Hagel-Levin amendment is far better.

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Hagel-Levin amendment, No. 2032, on troop deployment length, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, this amendment that Senator Levin and I offer this afternoon, joined by my distinguished colleagues, Senators Webb, Snowe, and Harry Reid, says the following: A unit of the Army, including the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, may not be deployed or continued or extended on deployment for more than 12 consecutive months, and a unit of the Marine Corps, including the Marine Corps Reserve, may not be deployed or continued or extended on deployment for more than 7 consecutive months. We recognize that some flexibility is required, therefore this amendment includes an exemption for forces needed to maintain continuity of mission and situational awareness between rotations. We all recognize we are in a war, and we understand that extraordinary circumstances will arise which may require an extended deployment. To that end, this amendment also provides the President of the United States with the authority to waive the provision in times of national emergency. To be clear, this amendment complements but is different from the Webb-Hagel amendment that we voted on this morning which sought to ensure that our troops have a minimum time at home between deployments. The war in Iraq has pushed the U.S. Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80 percent of its recruiting goal for June. This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with large cash bonus incentives. Over $1 billion in cash bonus incentives were offered and given last year. Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Gates declared the intent of the Department of Defense to deploy soldiers for not more than 12 months, and marines for not more than 7 months at a time. But in April, Secretary Gates announced that all Army units would deploy for 15 months because there were not enough rested forces available for redeployment. He said: Without this action, we would have had to deploy 5 Army active duty brigades sooner than the 12-month-at-home goal. I believe it is fair to all soldiers that all share the burden equally. Let me give an example of an extended, out-of-control deployment that recently hit my home State of Nebraska. Last month, 250 members of the Nebraska Army National Guard from the First Squadron, 167th Cavalry, and First Squadron, 134th Long Range Surveillance Detachment, returned to Nebraska from an 18-month deployment to Iraq. Yes, not 12 months, not 15 months--18 months, 18 months in Iraq, away from their families, their children, and their jobs. Let me remind you again, this is a National Guard unit. That doesn't even include the 4 months of pre- and postmobilization training stateside. Yesterday's Miami Herald reported the story of an Army reservist--not a member, again, of the regular Army. This reservist had been ordered to report to Iraq for his fifth deployment since we had been there. During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on June 27, retired GEN John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, testified that, in his words: Active-duty companies preparing for deployment to Iraq within the next 6 months at less than 50 percent strength, are commanded by young, inexperienced lieutenants [--young NCOs--] and these units are lacking the equipment they need for training. General Batiste's testimony before the House 2 weeks ago is not the first testimony to direct our attention to this reality, this fact. A June 24 article in the New York Times cited the concern of anonymous administration officials, Bush administration officials, who were quoted. ``The reality, the [Bush administration] officials said, ``is that starting around April [of next year] the military will simply run out of troops to maintain the current effort.'' The Bush administration officials continue in this New York Times story by saying, ``By then,'' April of next year, the President ``would either have to withdraw roughly one brigade a month or extend the tours of troops now in Iraq and shorten their time back home before redeployment.'' This is on top of the already established policy of 15 months for the Army, in some cases, as we know from my example of the Nebraska National Guard unit, 18 months. On June 23, the Washington Post quoted former Army Chief of Staff General Gordon Sullivan when he said: There isn't much more land power available for use in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are now ``all in.'' Another U.S. military strategist was quoted in the same article as saying: I do not believe we've ever had enough troops to do all the tasks we should be doing in Iraq. In February, General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to Congress that there is now, in his words--this is a quote--``significant risk that our military will not be able to respond to an emerging crisis in another part of the world.'' The Army continues to increase its reliance on men and women from the Navy and Air Force to fill Army vacancies in theater because we do not have enough soldiers. In April, at a hearing, the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health found that the military is putting already strained troops at greater risk of mental health problems because of repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Mental Health Advisory Team-IV assessment replaced in May found that soldiers who deployed longer than 6 months or had deployed multiple times were far more likely to screen positive for mental health issues and that deployment length was directly linked to morale problems in the Army. I wish to also note two other recent statements about what is going on within our force structure. This comes from an April edition of the Army Times. The military is so short of equipment that it will take years after the war in Iraq ends to bring it up to authorized levels. That was what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, told a House subcommittee. Of course, I think if we review the front page of most newspapers in America this morning, we are once again reminded what is going on in Iraq. I have heard in some of the debate on this issue the arguments against these amendments, the amendment that Senator Webb and I and others offered this morning, as a number of my colleagues are offering this afternoon that shows this is unconscionable, that somehow we have never done this before. Well, I think we have laid to rest, or I hope we have, the issue of the constitutionality of the Congress of the United States being part of setting war policy. I would remind those who have some confliction about this or misunderstanding, that they read article I of the Constitution. It is rather clear what the constitutional powers of the Congress of the United States are. If it is not our responsibility to deal with these great issues of our time--and I might remind all of us once again it is the Congress of the United States the Founders of this Nation entrusted with the sacred responsibility of declaring war. The administration or a President does not have that constitutional authority. It goes beyond that. But I would also say we have never had a war fought in this country by American troops that has been an all-volunteer Army, an all- volunteer Army and force structure. So in Vietnam, where some of us served, we did not have a manpower problem. We did not have a manpower problem because we had a draft. Now, we can go back to a draft. But we have to face the reality of what we are doing to the finest military the world has ever known--the best led, best educated, best equipped, most disciplined, and most focused, most selfless force structure the world has ever known-- professional. So when I hear: Well, we have never done this before, obviously Congress did get involved in Korea and all wars. But we have never fought two wars with an all-voluntary Army. So obviously we have limitations on force structure. The answer is not to continue to push and force the force structure to the breaking point--which we are doing now. And every general will tell you the same thing and every senior NCO will tell you the same thing, that is what we are doing. We are destroying the finest force structure the world has ever known, which took us, incidentally, 30 years to build because of what we did to it after Vietnam. In addition to that, we have been asking a very few individuals to bear all the burden and make all the sacrifices to sustain a war in Iraq that is now in its fifth year, longer than the entire duration of World War II. We have a mismatch with capability and manpower and mission. We have forces in 140 nations all over the world, but yet we have the smallest standing force since World War II. Something is wrong here. What do we do? Well, we keep going back to the soldiers and the marines: Well, you can do another 3 months, can't you, or 4 months or 5 months? You can do two or three deployments, can't you? You are a volunteer. You are a professional. It will not work. I think we are seeing very clear evidence of that. Who does look out for the rifleman? Who cares about the man and the woman at the bottom who are always the ones who have to do the fighting and dying? This is not an abstraction. This not an abstraction to them. We need to address this. We need to address it clearly. Well, for these reasons and others, I am hopeful that our colleagues will take a serious look at this serious amendment because I think it does address some of our issues, not all of our issues. It is not intended to address all of our issues. But we are in a situation where things are not getting better, things are getting worse. If we expect these men and women whom we ask to make all the sacrifices for all of us, then we owe them at least some responsible policy, policy worthy of them and policy worthy of their sacrifice. That is what this amendment addresses. I am grateful for my distinguished colleague and the dear friend, old friend, the junior Senator from Virginia's leadership; certainly the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and others who are cosponsors. I might note this is a bipartisan amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. On behalf of the junior Senator from South Carolina, I object.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I rise to support the Webb amendment on troop readiness. The distinguished junior Senator from Virginia has taken, once again, an important leadership role on an issue that is as important to our country, to our military, and their families as any one issue, and that is readiness, because it is the men and women whom we ask to fight and die for this country who must always be our highest priority. The men and women who serve this country in uniform and their families deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifices. I appreciate the leadership of my friend from Virginia on this issue. This is part of an amendment Senator Webb and I had introduced a couple of months ago. In February of this year, GEN Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to Congress that there is now, in his words, ``significant'' risk that our military will not be able to respond to an emerging crisis in another part of the world. Since that time, the United States has sent more of our soldiers and more of our military equipment to Iraq. The war in Iraq has pushed the U.S. military to the breaking point. I, like most of my colleagues, have been told by military leaders, both on active duty and those who are retired, that we are doing tremendous damage to our Army and to our Marine Corps, as well as our Army National Guard. Our troops are being deployed longer than they should be, more frequently than they should be, and without full training and equipment. We are eroding our military power at a time when our country faces an increasing arc of challenges and threats across the globe. We are abusing our all-voluntary force in a dangerous and irresponsible way. Senator Webb recited a number of the facts--facts, not interpretations, not subjective analysis, but facts--as to what is happening to our military today because of the burden we are placing on them in Iraq, our fifth year in Iraq, our sixth year in Afghanistan. This amendment goes to the heart of ensuring the readiness of our military and the time between deployments. This amendment will ensure that all Active units that have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan have time at home that is at least equal to the length of the previous deployment. If we can't commit at least that to our forces, then what can we commit to them? For the National Guard and Reserves, our amendment establishes a minimum 3 years between deployments. Longer and more predictable dwell time will allow soldiers to rest, reequip, retrain, and return to their families. Our amendment has waiver authority because there can be extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary use of our military. We have used that over and over and over in Iraq. Today, in our fifth year in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, we must return to the standards that allowed us to create the finest military force the world has ever known, the best led, the best educated, the best trained, the best equipped, and the most committed military the world has ever known. You can't make those kinds of militaries. You can't build those kinds of militaries overnight or even over 5 years. It took some of this country's greatest military leaders post-World War II--more importantly, post-Vietnam--such as General Powell, General Schwarzkopf, and many others, to commit their lives, 35 years of their lives to rebuild a broken military after we broke it in Vietnam. We are headed in the same direction unless we get control of this disaster now. Nothing is more important to our country, to our society than our people. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I appreciate the leadership of the junior Senator from Virginia who knows something about the military, who knows something about war. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SPC Josiah Hollopeter of Valentine, NE. Specialist Hollopeter was killed on June 14 in Al Muqdadiyah, Iraq. He was 27 years old. Specialist Hollopeter graduated from Valentine High School in 1998. He played high school football as a defensive end, starting as a senior opposite his brother Tyler, a sophomore at the time. Tyler would also go on to serve in Iraq as an Army helicopter pilot. Before joining the Army, Specialist Hollopeter worked construction jobs in Omaha and San Diego. He also worked for a canoe outfitter along the Niobrara River for several summers. Like so many young men and women of his generation, the terrorist attacks of September 11 had a profound impact on Specialist Hollopeter and inspired him to serve his country. He enlisted with the Army in January 2006. He served with the 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based at Ford Hood, Texas. We are proud of Specialist Hollopeter's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq. In addition to his brother, Specialist Hollopeter is survived by his parents Ken and Kelly Hollopeter; wife Heather; and sister Anna Hollopeter. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SPC Josiah Hollopeter.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SPC Adam Herold of Omaha, NE. Specialist Herold was killed on June 10 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his patrol in Karbala, Iraq. He was 23 years old. Specialist Herold was the youngest of three brothers in a close-knit Nebraska family. He attended Roncalli High School and would later join the Job Corps in Utah to learn a trade. In 2005, Specialist Herold made the decision to join the Army. He saw service in the Army as a means to a college education. But he also came from a family with a strong tradition of service to the country. Both of his grandfathers served in World War II. Specialist Herold had been serving in Iraq since October 2006 with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, based at Ford Richardson, AK. We are proud of Specialist Herold's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq. He is survived by his parents Lance and Debbie Herold, and brothers Andy and Kyle, both of Omaha. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SPC Adam Herold.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to wish the U.S. Army a happy birthday. It was 232 years ago today, June 14, 1775, that the Continental Army of the United States was formed. Over the past 232 years, millions of men and women have served in the oldest branch of our Armed Forces. Their honor, courage, sacrifice, and service are the foundation of America's greatness. The Army principles of ``Duty, Honor, Country'' represent the core values of America. Every generation of Americans who have served in the U.S. Army--from the Continental Army to our fighting men and women serving today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere--has been shaped by these principles. They inspire us and will continue to serve as role models for future generations. The Army has steadfastly protected our way of life and has never turned from a challenge. As the Army Song so eloquently says: First to fight for the right, And to build the Nation's might, And The Army Goes Rolling Along, Proud of all we have done, Fighting till the battle's won, And the Army Goes Rolling Along. Today's soldiers are the newest generation in a long line of dedicated professionals who have put service to the Nation over self. These soldiers, just as those who have gone before them, will continue to protect our democracy and make the world more secure, peaceful, and prosperous. On this 232nd birthday of the U.S. Army, we recognize and thank all those who have served or are serving our country with pride and honor in the uniform of the U.S. Army, especially those serving today in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``Happy Birthday'' to the U.S. Army.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer Chris Allgaier of Omaha, NE. Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier, an Army helicopter pilot, was killed on May 30 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. He was 33 years old. Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier attended Creighton Prep High School, where he graduated with highest honors in 1991. He earned a bachelor's degree in aeronautical administration from Saint Louis University in 1995 and a master's degree in aeronautical science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautic University in 2001. After graduating from college, Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier joined the Army to pursue a longtime interest in flying. He served with the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, based out of Fort Bragg, NC. This was his second tour in Afghanistan. Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier also served a year-long tour in Iraq. We are proud of Chief Warrant Officer Allgaier's service tour our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is survived by his wife Jennie and three children, Natalie, Gina, and Joanna, of Spring Lake, NC; his father Bob Allgaier of Omaha, and siblings Rob and Sharon, also of Omaha. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Chief Warrant Officer Chris Allgaier. Specialist William Bailey III Madam President, I also rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army National Guard Specialist William Bailey III of Bellevue, NE. Specialist Bailey died on May 25 when an explosive device struck his vehicle near Taji, Iraq. He was 29 years old. Specialist Bailey had been serving in Iraq since November with the 755th Chemical Reconnaissance/Decontamination Company. Specialist Bailey was also a volunteer with the Bellevue Volunteer Fire Department for 5 years. He was buried with full military honors and traditional fire department honors. His funeral procession included 35 firetrucks from several departments across Nebraska. Specialist Bailey is remembered as a devoted husband, father, son, and brother, as well as a committed member of the community. He was an avid hunter and outdoorsman, and he loved motorcycles. We are proud of Specialist Bailey's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq. He is survived by his wife Deanna and five children. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SPC William Bailey III.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, this is a sad day for all of us. Wyoming and the Senate have lost Craig Thomas. He was a neighbor. He was a friend. He was an individual whose life was committed to his country and his State. Often, when he would refer to my State of Nebraska, he would say: Oh, yes, that State of Nebraska; that is where Wyoming sends all of its wind. He said other things as well. Many times, he and Senator Enzi were responsible for stealing Nebraska's water. Other than those obvious flaws, Craig Thomas was one of those unique individuals whom we have heard his colleagues speak of this morning. None have exaggerated in their descriptions of this remarkable man. He, as has been noted, was a marine. He was a straight shooter. He was born and raised on a ranch in Wyoming. When you add all of that up, what else could he be but a straight shooter? He worked hard, as has been noted here this morning. Chairman Lugar outlined some of the participation of Craig Thomas on the Foreign Relations Committee where I, too, had an opportunity to serve with him. No one was ever better prepared when he spoke, more knowledgeable of the subject matter, and more a joy to be around because he never lost the most important element of each of us; that is, a humanness, the human dynamic. He had a special humanity that is not always easy to retain in this town and in this business. But that is what Craig Thomas was, and I think that is what most of us admired most about him. If service to America is one of America's highest and most important values, then Craig Thomas's legacy speaks volumes because that was his life. Lilibet and I offer our sympathy and our prayers to Susan and to the family. He served with great distinction and always put others first. One last comment about a memory of Craig Thomas for me. In 1996, when I was campaigning for my first elective office to the U.S. Senate and when there was a very legitimate question of whether I was worthy of election and whether I could win, Craig Thomas flew over from Wyoming to central Nebraska and spent a day campaigning with me in 1996. Craig was the first U.S. Senator to help me, to come into my State, and that day I spent with him talking about water issues, agricultural issues, the Marine Corps, and service to our country inspired all who were around him. I noted that those ranchers and those water resource specialists and others whom we visited on that campaign tour that day responded to him in a way that was rather special. I later learned through my almost 11 years in the Senate why people responded to him in such a special way. We will miss him. He leaves our institution, his State, and his country better than he found them. Thank you.