Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be registered in favor of vote No. 176, the Akaka amendment. My change will not affect the outcome. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be changed from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise today to address the issue of Iraq. The debate on Iraq over the last few weeks in our country and the Congress has been centered on conditions for America's continued involvement in Iraq. Unfortunately, it has been defined by many in the context of political winners and losers. Either President Bush wins or Congress wins. That is not responsible legislation. That is not a responsible approach to a serious issue such as a war, when today we have crossed over to 3,400 Americans killed in Iraq. The troops will get their money. They need to get their money. We will find a center of gravity that will accommodate the President and the Congress with the appropriate language or conditions for America's continued involvement in Iraq. The question we need to focus on now is: Where is Iraq headed? The answer will require an honest and clear analysis of the facts, as the facts are on the ground in Iraq today. I returned 3 weeks ago from my fifth trip to Iraq, and there is not much good news in Iraq. There is no point unraveling the last 4 or 5 years of mistakes and bad decisions or assigning blame. We are where we are. We are where we are, and we must get beyond the immediacy of today and the debate over the conditions of our continued involvement. We need to ask the question: What happens next? What happens in September and October? What comes after, hopefully, a reduction in violence? Where are we going in Iraq? How do we get there? Do we need a new strategy in Iraq, new thinking? As Secretary of Defense Gates has said, America's continued support is not open-ended, and the American people have registered that fact very clearly. Iraq is caught in a vicious complicated cycle of violence, despair, and no solutions. This cycle must be broken. American military power alone will not be the solution in Iraq. General Petraeus and all of our military leaders have stated this. Iraq's political system and leaders seem incapable of finding a political accommodation to move Iraq toward a political reconciliation. Our civilian and military leaders all agree there is no military resolution. That is only a temporary holding pattern for the Iraqis to find that new consensus of governance, and only a political resolution in Iraq will sustain that new center of gravity and that new consensus. Some strategic new thinking must be found in Iraq for our policies, not unlike what Ambassador Carlos Pasqual, Larry Diamond, and many others, have been thinking and writing about and putting forward over the last few weeks. First we must take the American face off of Iraq. Get America out of the middle of the Iraqi political process. We are exacerbating, we are complicating the problem; not because we are not well-intentioned and have not made tremendous sacrifices but because the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East believe we are still an occupying power after 4 years in Iraq. We must engage, as the Baker-Hamilton report recommended, Iran and Syria. The Bush administration deserves credit in beginning the engagement; however, it needs to be done in a regional framework, not a series of bilateral talks with unclear or disjointed purposes and objectives. The time has come to consider an international mediator for Iraq--probably under the auspices of the United Nations--to begin a new process for achieving some form of political accommodation in Iraq. The Iraqis are obviously incapable of bringing that consensus, that accommodation together. Only a credible and trusted outside influence can bring this political reconciliation about in Iraq. If it can be done, it will be up to the Iraqis to support it and to sustain it. America cannot do that for them. There are significant political, cultural, historical, religious, and regional differences between Iraq and other countries that have had UN mediators, such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, East Timor, and Northern Ireland. But they have been tailored to work, and they have worked. We have to understand we have no options in Iraq today. There is chaos today in Iraq. We must change direction, strategy, and policy. America can continue to support this process and help ensure the success of this mediation, but we can't, and we won't, continue to be the occupying power in Iraq. America has an important strategic, geopolitical, energy, and economic interest in the Middle East. It would be irresponsible to abandon Iraq and other interests in the region. But if we don't find a new direction soon, and a responsible and workable policy to help the Iraqis find some core stability, bringing some political consensus, America will leave and the Middle East could then erupt into a very dangerous regional conflagration. Reality and clear new strategic thinking being incorporated in a new direction and policy in Iraq is now required. These are the essential dynamics the Congress must now engage in--the Congress, with the President--and we must put aside the partisan dynamics, the partisan difficulties and differences. War should never be held captive to partisanship. It should never be a wedge issue for either political party. This is too serious. It is very serious. As we enter our fifth year, with the kind of money and casualties we have invested in Iraq, we must ask ourselves: Where do we go next? How do we get there? I think that will depend on some bold new strategic thinking, incorporating a new UN mediator we can support and frame and be a part of, and taking the American face off of the political process in Iraq. These are the issues we must debate and find consensus on. I would hope as we work our way through the differences on the $100 billion in additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan that we will move to that next series of significant consequences and seriously find a new strategy and policy for Iraq and America's interests in Iraq and the Middle East. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the men and women that serve our Nation as military spouses. I greatly admire the strength, courage, and commitment of these special individuals. In 1984, President Ronald Regan recognized the vital importance and personal sacrifice of the military spouse by declaring the Friday before Mother's Day as Military Spouse Appreciation Day. The impact that the military spouse has on the readiness and effectiveness of today's all-volunteer Armed Forces cannot be overstated. However, military spouses are rarely thanked or recognized for the vital role that they play in maintaining our national security. Today, more than 50 percent of our total force is married. Of the 1.12 million military spouses 92 percent are women, 78 percent are enlisted spouses, 57 percent are between the ages of 25-40 years, 73 percent have children, and 65 percent also work outside of the home. The Armed Forces' current operational tempo has placed unique challenges and extraordinary strain on our military families. Months of waiting and late nights filled with worry about a forward deployed loved one can take a toll on the most steadfast and stout-hearted man or woman. Despite this intense strain, military spouses have remained committed and loyal to their servicemember and families. These men and women know the true meaning of sacrifice and devotion. Today, America says thank you to our loving military spouses.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SSG Kenneth Locker of Burwell, NE. Sergeant Locker was killed on April 23 in Diyala province, Iraq. He was 28 years old. Sergeant Locker graduated from Burwell High School in 1997. He enlisted with the Army while he was still in high school. Bob Lee, his high school math teacher, said that after he enlisted, Sergeant Locker became a much more focused young man whose grades shot up. After high school, Sergeant Locker spent 3 years in the Army, 2 years with the National Guard, and eventually reenlisted with the Army. He had been in Iraq since August 2006 with the Army's historic 82nd Airborne Division. Sergeant Locker was previously injured in Iraq by a land mine. He was awarded a Purple Heart and lived with shrapnel in his neck. Thousands of brave men and women like Sergeant Locker are serving in Iraq. In addition to his life as a soldier, Sergeant Locker was father to three young sons and believed he was making a safer world for his children. He is also survived by his father Ken, two sisters, and a half sister and half brother. We are proud of his service to our country. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SSG Kenneth Locker. first lieutenant kevin gaspers I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army 1LT Kevin Gaspers of Hastings, NE. Lieutenant Gaspers was killed on Apri1 23 in Diya1a province, Iraq. He was 26 years old. Lieutenant Gaspers was a 2000 graduate of St. Cecilia High School in Hastings, where he wrestled and played football. After graduation, he attended the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and enrolled in the ROTC program. As a senior at UNL, Lieutenant Gaspers was selected to lead the ROTC cadet's battalion. His colleagues remember him as low-key and professional in his leadership style. He earned his Army officer's commission in 2005, along with a degree from UNL in accounting. Lieutenant Gaspers was a paratrooper with the Army's historic 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg, N.C. He had been serving in Iraq since August 2006. Lieutenant Gaspers is survived by his parents, John and Pam, and sisters Katie and Audrey. We are proud of his service to our country. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring 1LT Kevin Gaspers.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, this is an article from the April 20, 2007, Omaha World Herald, ``Bataan Death March Survivor Still Beating Odds at 101'' by Joseph Morton: When Albert Brown returned home after years in Japanese camps for prisoners of war, a doctor told him to get out and enjoy life while he still could. The native of North Platte, Neb., was unlikely to see 50, the doctor told him, given the illnesses, extreme malnutrition and physical abuse he suffered as a POW. Brown is 101 now--the oldest living survivor of the Bataan Death March. He was recognized by fellow survivors at a Washington conference this week that coincided with the 65th anniversary of the march. During the trip, Brown visited with a fellow veteran from North Platte, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. He sat in Hagel's Capitol Hill office, spinning some of the tales he's racked up over an eventful life. His darkest stories come from the war. In the late 1930s, Brown--who had been in ROTC in high school and college--got the call from Uncle Sam. He was to leave his Council Bluffs dental practice and report to the Army in two weeks. In 1941, when he was 35, Brown was shipped off to the Philippines, not long before the Japanese attacked there. Out of supplies and with no reinforcements in sight, American forces and their Filipino allies surrendered after months of fighting in 1942. The exact numbers vary somewhat from account to account, but more than 70,000 American and Filipino soldiers were captured. Overwhelmed with the task of transporting so many prisoners, the Japanese forced them to march north. Disease, thirst, hunger and killings marked the brutal ordeal, which lasted for days. Brown recalled being lined up and forced to march with no food and no water. He said local civilians would approach and attempt to throw food to the marchers. ``The Japanese would beat the hell out of them,'' he said. ``They'd go over there and take the butt of their rifle and just beat the hell out of those people, girls and boys, that threw stuff in there.'' Brown also witnessed the beheading of a 17-year-old Marine, who was forced to the ground ``on his hands and knees, and then they took the samurai sword out and severed his head.'' Brown himself was stabbed. ``I started faltering and got to the back of the pack, and then the Japanese (soldier) came up and stuck a bayonet in my fanny and he yelled 'Speed-o!,' and I knew what 'speed-o' meant. I never was at the back of the pack after that.'' At the prison camps in the Philippines, the violence and the shortages of food, medicine and water continued. Brown recalled how the temperature soared while the tens of thousands of men in camp relied on a single brass faucet for water. Fights would break out over places in line for that spigot, he said. ``Every drop in that canteen was your life.'' Later, Brown was one of the soldiers packed into a ``hell ship'' to camps in Japan and China. He remained a prisoner until the end of the war. He suffered numerous health problems as a result of his captivity, even losing his eyesight for a time. Brown's memories also wind their way back to his childhood in North Platte. His father, an engineer with Union Pacific Railroad, was killed when a locomotive exploded in 1910. The family lived a couple of blocks from William F. ``Buffalo Bill'' Cody. Brown said his family became friends with the former Wild West hero, whom he described as a quiet man who liked to sit on their porch. As a child, Brown recalled, he would sit on Cody's lap and run a hand through his beard. ``I don't know whether he liked that or not. Anyway, I kept doing it.'' The family later moved to Council Bluffs, where Brown attended high school. He went to Creighton University's dental school. He was quarterback of Creighton's football team and played as a forward on the basketball team. He received a medallion during the school's centennial celebration in 2005. In the years after the war, Brown moved to Hollywood, where he met a number of movie stars, including John Wayne. He said he used to play handball with one of Wayne's sons. Brown has retained his sense of humor and likes to throw a sly wink in with many of his jokes. He kidded that, during his trip to the East Coast, he had yet to find a girl to take back to Illinois, where he now lives with his daughter. ``I don't tell the girls I'm 102,'' he said, projecting his age to the milestone he'll hit later this year. What's left for Brown to do? He suggested to Hagel that perhaps he could be a U.S. senator. ``We should make you a senator, and maybe we'd get some things done up here,'' Hagel replied.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I do yield for that purpose.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan who occupies the chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 707, offered by Senator Webb and myself, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to offer my thanks as well to the distinguished majority leader of the Senate for his comments and his support of the amendment that I am about to address, as well as my friend and colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Virginia. The war in Iraq has pushed the U.S. military to the breaking point. Our troops are being deployed longer than they should be, more frequently than they should be, and without full training and equipment. When we deploy our military, the President and the Congress have a responsibility, an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, fully trained, and fully equipped. Senator Webb and I have introduced this amendment to protect and maintain the readiness and strength of our Armed Forces. Our amendment requires, with the force of law, that our troops are only deployed to Iraq when they meet the military's own standards for readiness and deployment. We are not creating new standards. We are simply requiring that the military's own standards be met so that our men and women in uniform are sufficiently rested, ready, fully equipped, and fully trained when deployed. That is the President's and the Congress's responsibility. No American wants to allow a single soldier to be deployed without meeting the required standards of readiness. Our amendment gives the President appropriate flexibility. Our amendment has a 4-month delay, before the provisions come into force, to give the President time to comply. The President can waive the readiness requirement in case of a national emergency and under circumstances where a unit will receive its full complement of equipment in the theatre of operations. Our amendment exempts from the deployment cap all headquarters personnel and any other U.S. military personnel who are needed in Iraq to ensure continuity of mission between rotating forces. This amendment will help our troops in a way that avoids having unintended operational consequences for our commanders in Iraq. Our amendment is about our troops. It is about readiness. It is about preventing our troops from being extended 3, 4, 5 or 6 months, as has been and is currently the case today. It is about ensuring a minimum time home between deployments. This amendment is also about addressing deployment rotations of our troops in Iraq. Many are there for their third and fourth tours of duty. The United States will not be able to sustain the greatest all- volunteer military that the world has ever known if we allow the status quo to continue. We are witnessing a clear and dangerous consequence of the administration's Iraq policy in Army recruitment. To meet recruitment targets, the military is being forced to issue waivers today. These waivers are for violent offenders, criminals, and for drug abuse. We are waving education requirements. The result is a defining down, a defining down of the standards of the U.S. Army. No institution can maintain any aspect of excellence by dumbing down its standards. If we do not stop this dangerous trend, it will affect the entire institution of our military, an institution that has taken great American leaders 30 years to build. After the disaster of Vietnam, our military was shredded. Ask Colin Powell. Ask Norman Schwarzkopf. Ask other great military leaders who, in fact, after Vietnam said: No more. We are going to build the finest, greatest, most responsible, best force structure the world has ever known, and they did. The deployment and operations tempo our military has had to endure in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 4 years cannot be sustained without inflicting unacceptable costs to our military power and our standing and influence around the world. As the Washington Post reported today, General Barry McCaffrey, the former four-star commander of the U.S. Southern Command, tours in Vietnam, led a division in 1991 in the Gulf War, he now believes-- according to the article in today's Washington Post--that the U.S. military is in, his words, ``strategic peril.'' Yesterday, LTG Steven Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, testified before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. General Blum said the National Guard is, in his words: . . . now in a degraded state back at home . . . The Army National Guard has on-hand only 40 percent of its equipment requirement . . . This hinders the ability of our units to train. It also can slow our response to disasters and terrorist incidents in the homeland. In February, GEN Peter Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. General Schoomaker said: ``I am not satisfied with the readiness of our non- deployed forces.'' At the same hearing, GEN Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that today our Army units ``do not have the opportunity that they would normally have in a two-year cycle to train for the combined arms that they may be required to execute elsewhere in the world.'' On March 1, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves issued a report that concluded that: Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units are rated as--their words--``not ready.'' There have been repeated reports that senior Army officials now believe there are no nondeployed Army brigades who are rated as combat ready. Now in our fifth year of the war in Iraq, the Congress must assert itself in a very real and responsible way to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities in matters of war as a coequal branch of our Government. Over the last 4 years, the Congress has been absent from this responsibility. The American people now expect us to step into this tragedy that we have allowed to happen and begin to reshape our policy in Iraq by placing responsible conditions on our continued military involvement in this war in Iraq. We are abusing our all-volunteer force in a dangerous and irresponsible way. We are abusing our people. We are abusing their families. We cannot continue to burden our military by continuing to place our military in the middle of a civil war in Iraq and loading onto them, continuing to load onto our military, expectations that they are incapable of fulfilling. We are asking our military to accomplish things they cannot accomplish, not because they are not brave enough, not because they haven't fought valiantly--they have fought valiantly and we are proud of them--but it is new diplomatic initiatives that must now drive our policies in Iraq. There will not be--nor cannot be--a military victory in Iraq that will achieve peace or any form of stability or security for the Iraqi people or the Middle East. The future of Iraq will be determined by the political accommodations of the people of Iraq which will result in a political resolution that will be supported by the Iraqi people, its regional neighbors, and other powers, including the United States. Our military should not be asked to do it all. Our military should not be expected to do it all. They have done more than their part. Our men and women in uniform and their families deserve policy worthy of their sacrifice. I do not believe that to be the case today. Unfortunately, today the Senate will not vote on our amendment. But Senator Webb and I are committed to this amendment, and we will continue to push for a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks, and we will be back and we will be back. We have been assured by the majority leader that we will get a vote on this amendment in the Senate. I conclude with this: I often ask myself, who speaks for the rifleman? Who cares about the rifleman? War is not a distraction. Those whom we ask to go fight and die are a very small percentage of our population whom we ask to carry all the burden and make all the sacrifices. But who speaks for them? Of course, we have a responsibility for a larger geopolitical strategic policy for our interests. We have interests in Iraq. We have interests in the world. We have interests in the Middle East. But do we ever stop enough and listen enough and focus enough on these soldiers, these marines and their families who have nothing to say about policy; but they do what their country asks them to do. When we frame policy in Washington, part of that prospective of framing that policy must include the right because it must ultimately get to this question: Is the cost worth what we are attempting to accomplish? Is the cost worth the high price we are asking others to pay? Ultimately, that is the question we should always ask ourselves, those of us who have the privilege and the responsibility to frame policy--if Congress must be part of that--not just constitutionally but morally, but morally. We each represent constituencies from around this country. We are close to those constituencies. We mirror those constituencies. We are products of those constituencies. We are close to those constituencies. We must do better for our military. We will pay a high price if we do not turn this around. We will pay a high price, indeed, not just in America's blood and treasure but for our future interests and security in the world. We have not paid attention to our military, we have not paid attention to the rifleman, and now is the time to start paying attention. I appreciate the time to offer this amendment with my friend and colleague who, as the majority leader noted minutes ago, was one of the most decorated veterans of the Vietnam war. He understands this issue very well. He understands it from the bottom up. It does not mean Senator Webb and Senator Hagel are always right on anything. But we do try to bring a frame of reference to this debate that is relevant, that is important, and focus our attention on the very critical element of who we are. It is our people. Nothing is more important than our people. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I believe we have until 2 o'clock; is that correct?

Mr. HAGEL. Seeing no other Senators on the floor wishing to speak on this amendment, unless the Senator from Virginia has additional colleagues that need time, I would, without objection, yield back our time.

Mr. HAGEL. With that understanding, and without objection, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President. I rise today to join Senator Durbin in introducing the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act. Global climate change has implications beyond economic, environmental and energy policies. It has the potential to affect every aspect of our daily lives. It is because of the possible broad impact on U.S. interests at home and abroad that I have agreed to be the lead Republican co-sponsor on the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act. Senator Durbin and I differ on policy initiatives designed to reduce the impact of climate change. We do agree, however, on the need to assess potential impacts of the changing climate on U.S. national security interests so that our Nation can develop responsible, forward- thinking policies that ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the American people. There will always be uncertainties and incomplete information in climate science. This is the nature of scientific discovery; it is constantly evolving, constantly gaining new insights and explanations of our natural world. National policy must be crafted based on what is known, but also must be able to incorporate the uncertainties of what is yet to be learned. Our bill provides a foundation for future policy options. It instructs the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a National Intelligence Estimate to assess the potential geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications for U.S. national security. It asks for a risk assessment of a broad array of impacts based on current scientific understanding. This bill is intended to gather information about the national security implications of projected climate change, so that in the future, Congress can develop policies that protect U.S. interests around the world. I have said that the debate is not about whether we should take action, but rather what kind of action we should take. It would be irresponsible to attempt to develop a response to the physical effects of climate change without knowing what the potential consequences are. Our actions should always be based on a comprehensive base of scientific information and knowledge. Without this kind of information, we cannot effectively determine what the risks to U.S. national security will be. We cannot realistically design policies that mitigate these risks without this information. General Charles F. ``Chuck'' Wald, USAF, ret., former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command, has stated, ``This bipartisan legislation takes on an important emerging policy issue--the impact of climate change and national security. I support its call for a national intelligence estimate of the topic and authorizing the Secretary of Defense to conduct further research on the military impact of climate change.'' As I have said for many years, the way forward is to responsibly address the issue of climate change with a national strategy that incorporates economic, environmental and energy priorities. These issues are inextricably linked and changes to one will effect the other two. These priorities are also an integral part of U.S. national security. Risk assessment is essential to putting our national resources in the places where they will be most effective. This is even more important when assessing risk to national security. This legislation will provide information we need to continue to help make our country secure in the years to come.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President. I rise today to join Senator Durbin in introducing the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act. Global climate change has implications beyond economic, environmental and energy policies. It has the potential to affect every aspect of our daily lives. It is because of the possible broad impact on U.S. interests at home and abroad that I have agreed to be the lead Republican co-sponsor on the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act. Senator Durbin and I differ on policy initiatives designed to reduce the impact of climate change. We do agree, however, on the need to assess potential impacts of the changing climate on U.S. national security interests so that our Nation can develop responsible, forward- thinking policies that ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the American people. There will always be uncertainties and incomplete information in climate science. This is the nature of scientific discovery; it is constantly evolving, constantly gaining new insights and explanations of our natural world. National policy must be crafted based on what is known, but also must be able to incorporate the uncertainties of what is yet to be learned. Our bill provides a foundation for future policy options. It instructs the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a National Intelligence Estimate to assess the potential geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications for U.S. national security. It asks for a risk assessment of a broad array of impacts based on current scientific understanding. This bill is intended to gather information about the national security implications of projected climate change, so that in the future, Congress can develop policies that protect U.S. interests around the world. I have said that the debate is not about whether we should take action, but rather what kind of action we should take. It would be irresponsible to attempt to develop a response to the physical effects of climate change without knowing what the potential consequences are. Our actions should always be based on a comprehensive base of scientific information and knowledge. Without this kind of information, we cannot effectively determine what the risks to U.S. national security will be. We cannot realistically design policies that mitigate these risks without this information. General Charles F. ``Chuck'' Wald, USAF, ret., former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command, has stated, ``This bipartisan legislation takes on an important emerging policy issue--the impact of climate change and national security. I support its call for a national intelligence estimate of the topic and authorizing the Secretary of Defense to conduct further research on the military impact of climate change.'' As I have said for many years, the way forward is to responsibly address the issue of climate change with a national strategy that incorporates economic, environmental and energy priorities. These issues are inextricably linked and changes to one will effect the other two. These priorities are also an integral part of U.S. national security. Risk assessment is essential to putting our national resources in the places where they will be most effective. This is even more important when assessing risk to national security. This legislation will provide information we need to continue to help make our country secure in the years to come.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, there will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. There will not be a military solution to Iraq. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. It does not belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. We can help the people of Iraq, as we have been helping them over the last 4 years, with a tremendous amount of our American blood and treasure. We have much invested in Iraq. America has strategic interests in the Middle East. And we will continue to help the people of Iraq, as we will continue to protect our interests and those of our allies in the Middle East. But the future of Iraq, however, will be determined by the Iraqi people. The future of Iraq will be determined by a political accommodation by the people in Iraq, which will result in a political resolution that will be supported by the Iraqi people, its regional neighbors, and other powers, including the United States. After 4 years in Iraq, America's policy there should be designed to gradually pull the United States further away from the day-to-day responsibilities, those day-to-day responsibilities of defending Iraq and de facto governance of Iraq, and turning over those responsibilities to the Iraqis, not escalating--not escalating--our military involvement in Iraq. Today, we are headed in the opposite direction. I will not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy in Iraq. We are now in our fifth year in an active war in Iraq. Iraq is more dangerous today than at any time in the last 4 years. And--puzzling-- the administration says, we are making real progress in Iraq. So if we are making real progress in Iraq, then why are we putting more and more American combat troops into Iraq at the same time our allies are leaving or have already left? The President's strategy is taking America deeper and deeper into this quagmire, with no exit strategy. In January, we were told that 21,500 more U.S. troops would be sent to Iraq. This month, we learned that as many as 7,000 more U.S. troops, in addition to the 21,500, would be sent to Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the President's recent decision to escalate our military involvement could require as many as 48,000 additional U.S. troops in Iraq. In January, the administration said progress on the Iraq war would be measurable by this summer. We have heard that at 6-month intervals for the last 2 years in oversight committee hearings. But now we are being told that additional troops could be required in Iraq well into next year. This strategy to deepen America's military involvement in Iraq will not bring a resolution in Iraq. It will only continue to undermine America's standing in Iraq and the Middle East, complicating and limiting our diplomatic options, and doing further damage to our military. And we continue to finance and build the most powerful and unaccountable mercenary armies in history, like Blackwater. We cannot continue down a path that is destroying our military and continuing to place our men and women in uniform in Iraq in the middle of a civil war. In February, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, reported to Congress that there is now--his word--a ``significant'' risk that our military will not be able to respond to an emerging crisis in another part of the world. Why did he say that? It is because we are overburdened, overstretched. We are breaking our force structure--third and fourth tours. Recently, the inspector general of the Defense Department issued a report on our National Guard. Our National Guard--our Army National Guard in America is broken. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Schoomaker, has made similar, recent comments in open testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is now time for the Congress to step forward and establish responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military involvement in Iraq. That is our responsibility. Need I remind our colleagues in this body, the Congress of the United States is a coequal branch of Government with the President of the United States? We not only have moral obligations but we have constitutional responsibilities. To hear some of my colleagues say we should dispense with this ``frivolous'' debate because the President has threatened a veto--what a waste of our time--if you logically follow that through, why do we need a Congress? Why don't we let the President make all the choices, make all the decisions? There are some, I suspect, in this administration who would like that, some in this country would like that. But we tried a monarchy once. It is not suited to America. There are separations of power. Of course there are. But there are three coequal branches of Government. It is now time for the Congress to step forward, after a disastrous 4 years in Iraq. The language in the Senate supplemental bill does this in a responsible way. The Senate language does not cut off funds. It does not impose a precipitous withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This language establishes a limited U.S. military mission in Iraq: counterterrorism, training Iraqi forces, and protecting U.S. personnel. That is not new. We have heard that from this administration over the last 4 years. This was not dreamed up. This idea that somehow you do not support the troops if you do not continue, in a lemming-like way, to accept whatever this administration's policy is wrong. That is what is wrong, and that is dangerous. This language establishes a limited U.S. military mission in Iraq that focuses on the things we should be doing, we can be doing. This new and responsible mission would pull our troops out of the middle of Iraq's civil war. Is that wrong? Is there something wrong with that-- asking these young men and women to put their lives on the line in the middle of a civil war in Baghdad, kicking down doors, with a bull's eye on their back--to pull them out of that? Is that wrong? Does that somehow display a cavalier attitude toward the support of our troops? I think not. I think just the opposite. There is a timeline in the Senate language. But it does not establish a binding date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Let's get that clear. It would establish the goal--those are the terms, goal--a goal that U.S. forces not involved in this more limited military mission be redeployed by March 2008. Is there something wrong with that? That means March of 2008 is 5 years we will have been there--5 years. We will have done significant damage to our Marines and our Army and our National Guard by then. We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned, and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies or plans or responsible. It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America's options on this point have always been limited. I support the President's decision to initiate a new diplomatic strategy and support a regional diplomatic process on the future of Iraq that began on March 10 at the regional security conference in Baghdad. But the President must devote his attention to foster those efforts. As the Baker-Hamilton report made clear, we must develop a regional diplomatic strategy to achieve stability in Iraq.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask for 60 seconds to conclude my remarks.

Mr. HAGEL. America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new center of gravity for this new century. The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars, and world standing has been devastating for our country. The American people are demanding that we develop a bipartisan consensus for an honorable and responsible exit strategy from Iraq. If we fail to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder--one we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead. Our actions today in the Congress begin this effort. Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SGT Wayne Cornell of Nebraska. Sergeant Cornell was killed in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was 26 years old. Sergeant Cornell grew up in the small town of Holstein, NE. A 1999 graduate of Silver Lake High School, his teachers had little doubt that he would serve his country after graduation. He enlisted with the Army National Guard soon after graduation and was deployed to Bosnia and Afghanistan. In 2006, Sergeant Cornell decided to continue his career in the Armed Forces and enlisted with the Regular Army. He was deployed to Iraq in February 2007 with the 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division based at Fort Riley, KS. Sergeant Cornell was a deeply committed father and husband. He always put his family first in the decisions he made. The Army was his means to provide for his family, as well as serve his country. He and his wife Patricia had two children, Dameion and Zoie, and the family is expecting a third child in July. In addition to his wife and children, Sergeant Cornell is survived by his father Larry Cornell, his mother Patricia Perrie, and sisters Jadeen Cornell and Janalle Gowlovech. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SGT Wayne Cornell.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I appreciate that.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, just a brief response to the distinguished majority leader about motives as to debate on Iraq. I don't know a Senator who has been clearer or more concise on this administration's positions on Iraq than the senior Senator from Nebraska. To suggest that some on this side are impeding or trying to protect the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, specifically escalating our military involvement in Iraq, is a bit off the mark. The fact is, the minority leader is very clear in his purpose. I have supported that. Minority rights are the essence, the foundation of this body. The minority should have an opportunity to present their resolution or resolutions. It should not be dictated to by the majority. Make it very clear, those on this side who have pushed for this debate are very clear in our position. I doubt if there is anyone who has been clearer than this Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators Warner, Collins, and others, in offering this amendment to the continuing resolution. Last week, Senators Collins, Snowe, Smith, Voinovich, Coleman, and myself sent a letter to the Senate leadership urging our distinguished majority and minority leaders to reach an agreement so the Senate could debate the war in Iraq. We said, and I quote from that letter: The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country. In the letter, we pledged to--again quoting the letter--``explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate on the Senate floor.'' That, of course, is why we are here today. I, similar to my colleagues, am deeply disappointed that a full and open debate on Iraq remains stymied in the Senate. All Members--Members of both parties--have the right and responsibility to present their views and, if they choose, submit other resolutions regarding the war in Iraq. I am also deeply disappointed that both sides have used procedural tactics in this process. My colleagues and I were assured that the leaders were committed to reaching an agreement on this debate. That has not yet happened, and I, similar to my colleagues, intend to do everything in my power as a Senator to ensure a full and open debate of the Iraq war on the Senate floor in front of the American people. We owe it to our soldiers and their families, and we owe it to the American people. I wish to focus on one particular aspect of this debate and that has to do with the resolution itself--the relevancy and importance of Senate resolutions. In the last 15 years, there is ample, strong, and significant precedent in the Senate debating a President's military policies while troops are deployed overseas--Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo. In each of those situations, I and many of my colleagues here today in the Senate debated and most of us voted binding and nonbinding resolutions regarding U.S. military operations abroad. Many of these measures expressed opposition to the military operations, criticizing, for example, one, the open-ended nature of the deployment; two, the danger of mission creep or escalation of military involvement; three, the danger of deploying U.S. forces into sectarian conflict; and four, the failure of the President to consult with Congress. It might be instructive to review some of the Senate's history on these recent debates regarding these recent resolutions. Let me begin with Bosnia. In June of 1992, U.S. forces began to deploy to Bosnia. In December 1995, the United States was preparing to deploy substantial ground forces into Bosnia, roughly 20,000 American ground force combat troops, very similar to the number we are now looking at in the President's escalation of more American troops into Iraq today. As a result of President Clinton's decision in 1995, the Senate considered Senate Concurrent Resolution 35, a resolution submitted by our colleague from Texas, the senior Senator, Mrs. Hutchison. This resolution was a nonbinding resolution. Again, this was a nonbinding resolution. This resolution said: The Congress opposes President Clinton's decision to deploy United States military ground forces into the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement the General Framework Agreement for peace in Bosnia. . . . This resolution also said: Congress strongly supports the United States military personnel who may be ordered by the President to implement the general framework for the peace in Bosnia. So, therefore, it is saying we support our troops, but we disapprove of the President's policy to send more troops. This resolution also said it was a continuation of the previous debate on support of the troops already deployed. As Senator Hutchison said on the Senate floor on December 13: There are many of us who do not think that this is the right mission, but who are going to go full force to support our troops. In fact, we believe we are supporting our troops in the most effective way by opposing this mission because we think it is the wrong one. . . . A month earlier in November 1995, Senator Hutchison framed the complexities of our military intervention in Bosnia in terms that are eerily relevant to today. She said: I am very concerned that we are also setting a precedent for our troops to be deployed on the ground in border conflicts, in ethnic conflicts, in civil wars. . . . Opposition to the President's policy but strong support for the U.S. military--this is similar to the debate we are having today on Iraq. Senator Hutchison's resolution had 28 cosponsors, including our friends and colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Craig, Kyl, Lott, Bennett, Hatch, Shelby, and Stevens. On December 13, 1995, 47 Senators voted in favor of Senator Hutchison's nonbinding resolution. That day, 47 Senators believed you could oppose the President's policy but still support our troops. The next day, December 14, 1995, the Senate considered Senate Joint Resolution 44, a binding resolution introduced by Senator Dole. This resolution supported U.S. troops in Bosnia. This resolution had six cosponsors, including our colleagues, Senators McCain and Lieberman. On December 14, 1995, the Senate adopted this resolution by a vote of 69 to 30. That was Bosnia in 1995. Somalia: In December 1992, U.S. troops began to deploy to Somalia. Nearly a year later, in September 1993, the Senate debated the objectives, the mission, and strategy of our military deployment in Somalia. Speaking on the Senate floor on September 23, 1993, Senator McCain framed the debate when he said: Somalia is a prime example of lofty ambitions gone awry. Our service men and women have become . . . part of a mission to build Somalia into a stable democracy--something, incidentally, it has never been, and shows no sign of ever becoming this decade. The manner in which military force is to be used to further this grandiose objective has been left unclear. Without a clear military objective, our forces in Somalia have found themselves involved in a situation where they cannot distinguish between friend and foe. They have often been presented with situations where they cannot even distinguish between civilians and combatants. On September 9, the Senate voted 90 to 7 to adopt a nonbinding--a nonbinding--sense-of-Congress resolution submitted by Senator Byrd. This resolution called on the President to outline the goals, objectives, and duration of the U.S. deployment in Somalia and said Congress believes the President ``should seek and receive congressional authorization in order for the deployment of U.S. forces to Somalia to continue.'' There are 11 cosponsors of the Byrd measure, including our colleagues, Senators McCain, Cochran, Bond, and Warner. One month later, after the horrible death of 18 U.S. troops in early October, the Senate considered two binding measures to cut off funds, one introduced by Senator McCain and one by Senator Byrd. On October 15, 1993, the McCain measure, which would have terminated further U.S. military operations in Somalia, was tabled 61 to 38. That same day, the Senate voted 76 to 23 to adopt the Byrd measure to cut off all funding in March 1994 for U.S. forces in Somalia. There are two more very clear examples, such as the examples I have given on Somalia and Bosnia, that I could discuss--Haiti and Kosovo--in some detail, and I may do that later. But the point is, the facts are clear. There is clear precedent--clear precedent--for both binding and nonbinding resolutions, as well as legislation to redirect, condition or cut off funds for military operations, and this is at the same time we have and we had military forces in those countries. So to argue, to state, to imply this is somehow not only irrelevant but unprecedented is not the case. The Congress has always had a responsibility, not just constitutionally but morally, to inject itself in the great debate of war.

Mr. HAGEL. Yes, I yield to Senator Warner.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. In conclusion, I add that the American people have had enough of the misrepresentations, the politics, and the procedural intrigue in the Senate. I say again to our distinguished leaders of both our parties: It is your responsibility, as leaders of this body, to resolve this procedural dispute so that the Senate can have a full, fair, open debate on the war in Iraq. And I will continue to join my colleagues-- Senators Warner, Collins, Snowe, and others--in making every effort to bring up our resolution at every available opportunity until that debate occurs. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of United States Army National Guard SGT Randy Matheny of Nebraska. Sergeant Matheny was killed in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated next to the vehicle he was in. He was 20 years old. Sergeant Matheny was part of a close-knit family in McCook, NE. A 2004 graduate of McCook High School, Sergeant Matheny is remembered as a quiet but likable young man who enjoyed learning about auto technology and computers. Following in the footsteps of two older siblings, he joined the Army in March, 2005 as a heavy-vehicle driver. His sister, Karen, is currently serving her second tour with the Army National Guard in Iraq. His brother, Paul, is a private first class in the regular Army. Sergeant Matheny had been serving in Iraq with the 1074th Transportation Company since early fall. We're proud of Sergeant Matheny's service to our country as well as the service of thousands of brave Americans who are currently serving in Iraq. In addition to his brother and sister, Sergeant Matheny is survived by his father Gary Matheny; his mother Jan Collins, and her husband Duane Collins; and stepsisters Kori Collins and Laci Ingels. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Sergeant Randy Matheny.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army 1LT Jacob Fritz of Nebraska. Lieutenant Fritz was killed near Karbala, Iraq on January 20. He was 25 years old. Lieutenant Fritz was raised on his family's farm near Verdon, NE. From a young age, Lieutenant Fritz knew he wanted to be a leader. After graduating from Dawson-Verdon High School in 2000, he followed through on this goal. I had the honor of nominating Lieutenant Fritz to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He graduated from the Academy in 2005. His brother, Daniel Fritz, 22, followed in his footsteps and is currently in his third year at West Point. Like his brother Jake, I had the privilege of nominating Dan to West Point. Lieutenant Fritz was leading a unit of more than 30 soldiers in Iraq since October. Lieutenant Fritz described his mission as a liaison between Iraqi police and the U.S. Army. He said the work was challenging, but rewarding. Lieutenant Fritz was buried on January 31 with full military honors in a church cemetery 4 miles from his family home near Verdon, NE. Family and friends paid their final respects in a moving service that reminded all of the courage, commitment, and sacrifice of soldiers like Lieutenant Fritz. As his childhood friend Air Force 1LT Brett Cooper remembered, a life of service to his country followed by a retirement to the small town life that he loved was all that Lieutenant Fritz wanted. We're proud of Lieutenant Fritz's service to our country as well as the service of thousands of brave Americans who are currently serving in Iraq. In addition to his brother Dan, Lieutenant Fritz is survived by his parents Lyle and Noala and his younger brother Ethan. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring 1LT Jacob Fritz.