Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I join my colleague Senator McCain in opposing the amendment and wish to read three paragraphs of his statement, and then the rest of it will be in the Record for all to see: Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin. The pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq and cut off funds for our troops after June 30, 2008. The one exception would be for a small force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions. The Senate, once again, faces a simple choice: Do we build on the successes of our new strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support needed to carry out their mission, or do we ignore the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue? That is the choice we must make, Mr. President, and though politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one direction, we have a greater responsibility, the duty to make decisions with the security of this great and good nation foremost in our minds. We now have the benefit of the long anticipated testimony delivered by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, testimony that reported unambiguously that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Understanding what we now know--that our military is making progress on the ground, and that their commanders request from us the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is beginning to show real results. Those are the first three paragraphs of the statement from Senator McCain. I join him in opposing the amendment and express his regret at not being able to be here for this debate. Exhibit 1 Amendment No. 3164 to the DOD Appropriations Act for FY 2008: Cutoff of Funds for Iraq (Statement of Senator John McCain, October 3, 2007) Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin. The pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq and cut off funds for our troops after June 30, 2008. The one exception would be for a small force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions. The Senate, once again, faces a simple choice: Do we build on the successes of our new strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support needed to carry out their mission, or do we ignore the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue? That is the choice we must make, Mr. President, and though politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one direction, we have a greater responsibility, the duty to make decisions with the security of this great and good Nation foremost in our minds. We now have the benefit of the long anticipated testimony delivered by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, testimony that reported unambiguously that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Understanding what we now know--that our military is making progress on the ground, and that their commanders request from us the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is beginning to show real results. We see today that, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, the situation on the ground in Iraq is showing demonstrable signs of progress. The final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency plan have been in place for over 3 months and our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making significant gains in a number of areas. General Petraeus reported in detail on these gains during his testimony in both houses and in countless interviews. The number two U.S. commander in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, has said that the seven-and-a-half-month-old security operation has reduced violence in Baghdad by some 50 percent, that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and that civilian casualties have dropped from a high of 32 per day to 12 per day. His comments were echoed by LTG Abboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander, who said that before the surge began, one third of Baghdad's 507 districts were under insurgent control. Today, he said, ``only five to six districts can be called hot areas.'' None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have suddenly become safe, or that violence has come down to acceptable levels. As General Odierno pointed out, violence is still too high and there are many unsafe areas. Nevertheless, such positive developments illustrate General Petraeus' contention that American and Iraqi forces have achieved substantial progress under their new strategy. The road in Iraq remains, as it always has been, long and hard. The Maliki government remains paralyzed and unwilling to function as it must, and other difficulties abound. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects. We can be sure, however, that should the United States Congress succeed in terminating the strategy by legislating an abrupt withdrawal and a transition to a new, less effective and more dangerous course--should we do that, Mr. President, then we will fail for certain. Let us make no mistake about the costs of such an American failure in Iraq. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee in September, General Petraeus referred to an August Defense Intelligence Agency report that stated, `` * * * a rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; a rapid deterioration of local security initiatives; al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver; a marked increase in violence and further ethnosectarian displacement and refugee flows; and exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran.'' Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us how they intend to address the chaos and catastrophe that would surely follow such a course of action. Should this amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or less stable? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever likelier? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal will somehow make this less likely? No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Last month, General Jim Jones testified before the Armed Services Committee and outlined what he believes to be the consequences of such a course: `` . . . a precipitous departure which results in a failed state in Iraq,'' he said, ``will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists, jihadists . . . in the world, who will believe that they will have toppled the major power on Earth and that all else is possible. And I think it will not only make us less safe; it will make our friends and allies less safe. And the struggle will continue. It will simply be done in different and in other areas.'' Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safehavens and regional war. We invite further Iranian influence at a time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons, training fighters, providing resources, and helping plan operations to kill American soldiers and damage our efforts to bring stability to Iraq. If any of my colleagues remain unsure of Iran's intentions in the region, may I direct them to the recent remarks of the Iranian president, who said: ``The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly . . . Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.'' If our notions of national security have any meaning, they cannot include permitting the establishment of an Iranian dominated Middle East that is roiled by wider regional war and riddled with terrorist safehavens. The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out ``operations against al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.'' But such a provision draws a false distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence. Let us think about the implications of ordering American soldiers to target ``terrorists,'' but not those who foment sectarian violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence? When the Madhi Army attacks government police stations, are they acting as terrorists or as a militia? When AQI attacks a Shia village along the Diyala River, is that terrorism or sectarian violence? What about when an American soldier comes across some unknown assailant burying an lED in the road? Must he check for an al Qaeda identity card before responding? The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are deeply intertwined. To try and make an artificial distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence is to fundamentally misunderstand al Qaeda's strategy--which is to incite sectarian violence. Our military commanders say that trying to artificially separate counterterrorism from counterinsurgency will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the past 4 years. We should not, and must not, return to such a disastrous course. The strategy that General Petraeus has put into place--a traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes protecting the population, which gets our troops out of the bases and into the areas they are trying to protect, and which supplies sufficient force levels to carry out the mission--that strategy is the correct one. It has become clear by now that we cannot set a date for withdrawal without setting a date for surrender. Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war. Consider just one final statement from the August National Intelligence Estimate. It reads: ``We assess that changing the mission of the Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven would erode any security gains achieved thus far.'' Should we pass this amendment, we would erode the security gains that our brave men and women have fought so hard to achieve and embark on the road of surrender. For the sake of American interests, our national values, the future of Iraq and the stability of the Middle East, we must not send our country down this disastrous course. All of us want our troops to come home, and to come home as soon as possible. But we should want our soldiers to return to us with honor, the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid with the ultimate sacrifice. We have many responsibilities to the people who elected us, but one responsibility outweighs all the others, and that is to protect this great and good Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Feingold amendment.

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I hope both of these amendments can be worked out, but we haven't been able to work the first one out yet. I will not take very long, but I understood the Senator from Delaware was here and prepared to talk about his amendment. I am happy to defer to him and discuss mine later.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment I offered a little bit earlier this afternoon, No. 3144. This amendment has been mischaracterized and, unfortunately, is obviously misunderstood. It happens to be in the missile defense part of the budget. I would be happy to have it included in a different part of the budget if it would make it clearer to people that it is not solely a missile defense program. In fact, in my view, the key value of a space-based test bed is not its ability to enhance missile defense but its unique ability to protect our satellites against a very significant threat posed to them at this time. My colleague from North Dakota talked about a threatometer-- hypothetical, perhaps, but a rational way to examine prioritization for defense spending. If there is a relatively low-level threat, we might want to set a lower priority in funding to protect against it than a threat that is of higher possibility. By the same token, if almost everything you do in military activity is dependent on one thing and that one thing is vulnerable, you obviously want to protect that one thing. That is the priority we are not attaching to the defense of our satellites in space, which are critical, vital, of immeasurable importance, not just to everything our military does but a great deal of our economic activity as well. It is the ability to defend our space assets from attacks either on the ground or in space that the space- based test bed is significantly designed to do research work on. Let us understand, the space-based test bed is merely a research tool to understand concepts that are first developed terrestrially on the ground and, if proof of concept is suggested as potentially valuable, lift it into space to see whether it works there as well, to see whether maybe a defensive system can be devised to protect our satellites in space or to provide protection against intercontinental ballistic missile attack and, if so, to have a program developed and designed and then researched and ultimately perhaps produced and finally deployed, all of which is years down the road. All we are talking about is a proof of concepts basic research program of only $10 million in cost. To have it zeroed out because of some belief that we don't need to spend any more on missile defense misses the point. Let me go back to what I was talking about. I received a briefing 2 days ago, a highly classified briefing that, frankly, scares me to death. But there is enough we can talk about that is unclassified to make the point. As I said, almost everything we do in military fighting these days in one way or another depends upon our satellites. Our troops communicating with each other, the Air Force dropping a bomb on a precise location, doing intelligence surveillance, the GPS system which is installed in virtually everything we do now--all of these things are reliant on satellites. That is not to mention all the communications and financial transactions and all of the other things we depend upon every day, every communication device--almost every. I shouldn't say ``every,'' but most of the communications devices we have, whether they are used in the military or in our private lives, the means of sending signals to do things back and forth, the airplanes that fly through the sky--we could go on and on about our society's dependence today on communication from satellites. We have to protect those satellites. There are a lot of ways of attacking them. They are all relatively cheap. It is called asymmetrical warfare because a country that may not be able to beat us on the battlefield with tanks and planes and submarines and so on knows all it has to do is literally pick up the sand and throw it in our eyes and then we can't fight, no matter how big and strong we are. That is what they do if they knock out our satellite system. How do you do that? There are a lot of different ways. The Chinese recently demonstrated to us a brute force way. They simply sent a missile up and blew up a satellite. They did that to one of their old weather satellites. It left a lot of debris in the sky. There are laser technologies to lase the satellite, which can be done from the ground but more effectively, if you can, from space because there you don't have the air disruptions to divert the laser beam. You have directed energy. You have radio kinds of jamming or electronic jamming. This can be done either from the Earth or in the sky or, frankly, from space. Doesn't it make sense for us to have the capability to stop the destruction of our satellite system on the first day of a war where we rely upon all of that to do what we need to do? Let me take a hypothetical. I don't mean to disparage any particular nation by engaging in a little bit of hypothetical war-gaming here, but it has been no secret that the Chinese Government would like to see Taiwan reunited, in their view--in any event, brought within the Chinese Government sphere. Both the Chinese military and the American military, as well as the Japanese and Taiwanese and others, have developed weaponry that would be useful in any kind of conflict that might evolve in that situation. But it is very clear that the Chinese have thought about how to keep the United States out of such a war for at least 2 or 3 days, giving them the time they would need to actually take over Taiwan. How do you do that? Well, we won't discuss all the ways it could be done, but the Chinese have developed certain weapons that would be problematic for the United States to deal with, one of which is an ability to attack our electronics and our satellites. Right now, we have very little in the way of defense against that. What the space-based test bed concept would do is begin to give us an understanding of what might be possible for part of that defense. That is not the end of it. We still would have to protect against something like a jammer from the Earth or perhaps a laser from the Earth. But to the extent that a missile launched from the Earth against one of our satellites would pose a threat, space-based test bed research might be able to find a way to stop that. To the extent that it is a Chinese satellite in space, for example, we might be able to find a way to stop it. It seems to me to make no sense to say that on a threat which may not be the most likely threat in the case of everyday happening but which would be absolutely devastatingly destructive if it ever happened--and it is not hard to postulate a situation in which it could happen--to say we are not going to spend any money on defending our satellites makes no sense to me. I have heard that one of the reasons some groups are opposed to this is their fear that somehow or other we are going to weaponize space. Let's deal with that right now. First, an intercontinental ballistic missile against the United States or against one of our satellites is a weapon in space. We are not weaponizing space if we try to defend against that. That is a ludicrous argument. We wait until somebody else fires an ICBM against us and then we decide we better defend against that, and if we can somehow get something up into the atmosphere, well, that is a weapon in space, but it is probably a pretty good idea to stop their weapon in space. If we send up an interceptor missile, that is a weapon in space. Suppose the Chinese decide, instead of destroying one of their weather satellites, they are going to destroy some of our satellites that provide the means of communication and the means of directing weapons and the means of identifying the battlefield and of surveilling it, they are going to destroy some of our satellites by sending up a missile that has already destroyed one of theirs, so it is clearly capable of doing so. Let's say we have found that we can, by using this test bed, provide maneuverability of our satellite so it can move out of the way, or we have found that we can actually add to it a defensive kind of laser or a defensive kind of jamming device that prevents the Chinese missile from actually hitting or destroying the satellite. Why wouldn't we want to do that even if it has some kind of a little steel ball in it that--because of the vacuum in space, it doesn't take a lot of force to get something moving at a very high rate of speed. You could eject that steel ball and have it intercept a missile that is coming up toward the satellite in order to destroy the missile before it can destroy our satellite. What is wrong with thinking about solving the problem? We are not talking about developing anything. We are not talking about deploying anything. In fact, before you even do more research in space, it would have to be confirmed in concept on the ground. Is there such a fear of defending ourselves that we don't even want to think about how to do it in a situation where it would be critical to an attack against us? I don't understand the argument against this. Let me make a couple other points. The deputy commander of STRATCOM said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee last year: Space capabilities have revolutionized the way we fight today. He went on to describe a variety of ways in which this is true. I have talked about some of them. I have noted that in the civil sphere, satellites enable our ATMs, the financial markets, our truck fleet management. I just met with the CEO of the largest trucking company in the United States, Swift Trucking. He said they have GPS satellite on every one of their trucks. They can tell exactly where every one of their trucks is at any given time, and this enables them to manage their fuel mileage so they are environmentally good. They don't exceed the speed limit. They can get them to the destination by the shortest route. All of this is done by satellite, as are credit card validations. Our first responders rely significantly on this. The next generation of air traffic control, I mentioned before. I could go on and on. The general's point is that it is not just in military activity but our civilian life as well. But he makes the point that with regard to the military, loss of our space capabilities would be devastating to our military. I mentioned China, but countries such as Iran and Libya have also attacked satellites in recent years, as have other countries. I mentioned jamming, direct descent antisatellite weapons, directed energy, laser weapons--all of these have been proven, at least conceptually. Over 20 nations now have ballistic missiles, and under the right circumstances, these can destroy satellites. They can also come through the atmosphere carrying a weapon and blow it up over American soil or they can create an electromagnetic pulse explosion in the atmosphere which would also explode electronics. Since the year 2002, there have been an average of 90 foreign ballistic missile launches per year. Last year, there were 100. This is not a theoretical concept; this is a capability many countries have and have tested. Obviously, if we are trying to defend against a ballistic missile threat, having some capability in space could be very helpful. We would have to have the debate about weaponizing space at a future time, if a proof of concept through the space-based test bed were ever developed. That is a fight we could have. I would be happy at that point to engage my colleague, who has talked a little bit about that political issue, but it is very premature to talk about that in the context of what we are trying to do here today. I mentioned the Iranians. They have a Shahab-3 missile with a range of 1,300 kilometers and another one with a range of 1,900 kilometers. According to our intelligence community, they could have long-range capability in just a few more years. This could evolve into any of the kinds of threats I just mentioned a little bit ago. So what this space bed does is explore the survivability, affordability, the deployability, and the operability of the different types of capabilities that could be based in space. As I said, it begins with the terrestrial proof-of-concept stage that would take several years to complete. It would be years before orbital testing would even be considered, and the Congress will have all of that time to debate whether we want to move forward with any of these things. But at least we would be doing so with knowledge, with facts, with data, and not merely speculation. Some fear that in one way or another the program might morph into something we do not want it to morph into. We cannot engage in that informed debate today. What this program would do is enable us to engage in that informed debate. After one more comment, I will ask unanimous consent to have a letter printed in the Record dated July 6 of this year by GEN Henry Obering that talks about the need for the space test bed and describes at least what its capabilities would be, at least in the context of missile defense. The last thing I want to do is I want to go back to the Chinese because they are among the countries that have demonstrated the most interest in taking out our satellites. A Chinese military analyst recently wrote that space is ``the U.S. Military's `Soft Ribs', A Strategic Weakness'' and that ``for countries that can never win a war with the U.S. by using the method of tanks and planes, attacking the U.S. space system may be an irresistible and most tempting choice.'' We already cut significant parts of our space program. The space tracking and surveillance satellites were cut $55 million under the SASC bill and $59 million by the Armed Services Committee bill. There is a classified program that exists that was further cut, and the Defense Department's Space Radar Program was cut significantly. The defense committee cut $200 million from the TSAT Program, which is a communications satellite for military communications traffic. But General Obering has said the space test bed ``is a proving ground for concepts and integrated technologies. . . . Exploration of alternative implementation architectures is a critical part of the Space Test Bed. . . . Ultimately, policymakers will decide to deploy or not. However, the policy debate would be greatly improved if informed by a quantitative understanding of the issues. The Space Test Bed will provide essential decision support.'' So that is why we should not zero out this program. A very modest $10 million investment could help us begin a process of deciding whether concepts are worth pursuing. Given the fact that our satellites are almost absolutely vulnerable to a variety of different kinds of attacks, I ask whether my colleagues are willing to vote against a mere $10 million to begin the basic research to see whether there are not some ways we might want to eventually pursue to protect those satellites. I hope my colleagues will seriously consider this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, my colleague John McCain cannot be here today. He has a statement with respect to the Feingold amendment that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will be happy to speak. I believe the Senator from Delaware was going to speak. If he wants to speak now, I will be happy to defer to him.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me say, first, I am aware of what is being done to protect our assets, and we don't, as has been said before on the floor of this Chamber, have defenses for our satellites in space today by an attack by another country. We have to work in this area. The space-based test bed is one of the places in which we could develop proof of concept that could be effective both for our satellites and, yes, also for an attack by a hostile missile because that is where this program started, it is in the missile defense budget. But that doesn't mean if I drop this amendment, for example, as the Senator is suggesting I do, that, therefore, we can forget about the need to protect our satellites because everything is taken care of. We have a need to develop concepts which include the ability to test, first, terrestrially and then in space, proof of concept that would provide for defenses, that would both protect satellites and protect against a hostile missile attack. For the life of me, I don't see why my colleague can so confidently predict that my amendment will not have the votes to be adopted simply because on down the road many years from now it is theoretically possible that a concept would be developed to protect against a hostile missile attack with some kind of a space-based program.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I was going to suggest that, and I appreciate the Senator's comments. I am aware of the situational awareness programs. The point I was trying to make earlier in response to the distinguished chairman of the committee is this is not a situational awareness program. This is a program that could actually result in the development of defenses for our satellites, a lot of different potential concepts. The concepts that would protect the satellites from space, of course, are different potentially from the concepts that would protect them from the ground. I am happy to have a different line in the budget, if that is going to solve the problem. But what I don't want to do is to have the money allocated simply for tracking or surveillance or situational awareness as opposed to researching development of potential defenses. I wonder if my colleague will respond.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator, part of defending a satellite against an attack is being aware the attack is pending, is about to happen, or is happening. But if all you know is that I am being attacked and you are not capable of defending yourself, the knowledge you are being attacked is of little use. So this is not a matter of surveillance or situational awareness; it is a matter of developing defenses. I guess I would put this question to my colleague: As an abstract principle, would my colleague favor or oppose the concept of a space- based defense of satellites of the United States that have military uses, in other words, a defense that would be perhaps based on the satellite itself to jam signals as some weapon homes in or that would create some kind of effective shield of electromagnetic pulse or other kind of electronic defense or even a kinetic kind of defense for the satellite if it is under attack, perhaps some kind of shielding against a laser attack? In other words, all different kinds of attacks that might come. As a hypothetical matter, would my colleague not agree that it would be very useful and appropriate, even if those defensive capabilities are located in space, for us to be able to protect our satellites in that way or would my colleague consider those to be space-based weapons that are impermissible?

Mr. KYL. I understand that we can now begin the 30 minutes of debate running up to the vote on the Graham-Kyl amendment?

Mr. KYL. Let me start by offering a few comments about why this amendment is important. But, first, to put it into context, we have made a lot of progress. We have come a long way toward securing the border and stopping the problem of illegal entry into our country. But we have a long way to go. This amendment is designed to continue the progress that we have been making with funding that is necessary for that. Just to put a little context here, for example, in 1994 we had 4,000 Border Patrol agents for the entire border. We now have over 15,000. But we still know there are way too many incursions into the United States and more Border Patrol will help to end that. We gave the Department of Homeland Security an extra $1.2 billion to pay for those Border Patrol agents, as well as fencing and vehicle barriers, detention space, and the like. Secretary Chertoff just visited my State of Arizona last week. And he reports in addition to the Border Patrol hiring that I mentioned and the addition of some detention space they are on track to complete 70 miles of fencing by the end of this year. With the additional money this amendment will provide for next year, they will be able to complete at least 371 miles of fencing along the entire Mexican border. This is not just a fence. Some people say: Well, if you build a 10- foot-high fence, they will come in with an 11-foot ladder. That is a cute refrain, but the reality is, this fencing I have seen built down on the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range just east of Yuma is double fencing. They have to have a very heavy pile driver to drive these steel beams into the ground and attach steel flanges to the side. You cannot get through there. Now lizards and critters can get through, so from an environmental standpoint, it is actually a good thing, but people cannot get through. And, importantly, that, combined with vehicle barriers, which are also large railroad tie-type structures put into the ground to prevent vehicles from coming across, is particularly important because it is the vehicles that bring the drugs. Of course, they can bring larger numbers of immigrants. But the reality is, where you have vehicles, most likely you have weapons and you have drugs. And, of course, where that is involved, you are putting in danger the lives of our Border Patrol and other Federal officers and making it more likely that the value of the contraband coming across is going to be significant, thus driving these smugglers into more desperate measures to protect it. Violence across the entire southern border has increased significantly. With the double fencing, there is a road in between. And the point of fencing is to slow down those who might find a way to get over the fence. The reality is, with additional vehicles, with additional Border Patrol, and this kind of fencing, what you can create is a situation where, by the time someone may have gotten over the first fence, the sensors and the cameras will have alerted Border Patrol, and they are stationed at close enough intervals that on the road in between, Border Patrol can get to the site and pick up the illegal entrants. So that is why this kind of fencing is so important. As I said, with the money that is provided in this amendment that is before us right now, we will be able to complete at least 370 miles of fencing along the southern border by the end of next year. We need additional detention space. In Del Rio, TX, in Yuma, AZ, there are programs already that apprehend illegal immigrants. When they have been apprehended more than once, they are put into detention immediately. Now, about 85 percent of the illegal immigrants just want to come here to work. The other 15 percent are criminals, and some are very serious criminals. You need to detain them. But it is also helpful to detain those who have come across repeatedly to find work. Why? They cannot afford 60 days in jail where they are not providing for their families. And it is a great incentive for them to decide not to cross the border anymore because if they are going to get put in jail, then they are not going to be able to provide the money to their families that they came across here in the first instance to provide. So those programs have reduced the immigration in those areas dramatically. But we need more detention spaces for this particular kind of detention. Again, this $3 billion will help to provide that. It can help to provide more prosecutors and public defenders and judges because once you have detention, of course, you also may have criminal trials and you may need to have the entire chain of the criminal justice system funded. In addition, this funding that we will be providing in this amendment will help to improve the verification system that employers are required to use, the so-called E-Verify system, to make sure it is operating accurately at full capacity. This is particularly important in my State because, frustrated by the lack of action by the Federal Government to have a good system, our State passed a law that will provide serious sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants. But they have to rely on the Federal system to make that determination. It is not, right now, in the best of shape. It needs to be improved. The capacity is there, but the ability to determine valid identity is not. So money in this bill will help to get the Federal system into a position that States could rely on in order to enforce their own State laws against hiring illegal immigrants. So there is much more that this $3 billion provides. But I wanted to thank my colleague, Senator Graham, for his work in making sure, whether it is on the Department of Homeland Security bill or this bill, we make sure, one way or the other, that we will have the funding to continue to work to secure the border and to make sure that we can stop the illegal immigration into this country that has created so many problems for us. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. These will be pending separately, not together.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I wish to respond to four quick points made in reference to my amendment, which is amendment No. 3144. First, the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Hawaii, said we have funded many space programs, and he mentioned the Space Tracking and Surveillance System and Space Situational Awareness Programs. That is true, except that they cut $55 million out of the STSS Program. The key point is that those are situational awareness and tracking programs, not defensive programs. There is zero in here for the defense space test research program. That is what I am talking about--not situational awareness and tracking but an actual Defense research program. Secondly, the Senator from North Dakota first responded to my argument and the fact that I had quoted General Obering's support by saying he is not surprised that the Kyl amendment is supported by a general, that they usually are because their careers depend upon programs. Frankly, I am astounded by this ad hominem attack. Let's attack the substance of the program, not the general who supports it. We cannot trust our generals? Is that what is being said? We ask them to devise ways of protecting us from attack, and that is the thanks they get. Let's turn to the substance of the argument. Two primary points were made by the Senator from North Dakota. First of all, because the space- based test bed program could evolve into a space-based missile defense, regardless of its other benefits for satellite protection, we should not fund the program. Well, my first reaction is, God forbid that we would develop a program to defend us from intercontinental ballistic missiles. We would not want to do that. Of course, the point is there are years of decisionmaking between the time that a space-based test bed program evolves into concepts and potential programs and the research evolves into specific proposals and the time that the Senate would ever vote on them. Does the Senator have such a lack of confidence in his ability to stop such a horrible thing--space-based defenses--that he is not even willing to allow a program to be funded to develop conceptual programs to defend our satellites in space, which presumably we all favor? Finally, the last argument was, well, the nations of the world would be better to get together and have an agreement not to develop weapons in space. There are two answers to that. First of all, what is a Chinese missile flying through space to hit a satellite called? That is what they did. As the Senator from Florida and I discussed the other day, that they left a lot of space debris is a problem in the wake of that attack. What is a missile flying through space to hit another country's satellite called? Is that a weapon in space? Are we so afraid of defending our satellite assets that we don't want to defend against a satellite killer missile from a country coming up from the ground into space that hits our satellite? Would we not want to defend it from space? That is a ludicrous argument. I don't believe we are going to get the countries of the world together to join in a treaty to have them forget programs that they have already been developing--the Chinese in this particular case--because they want to have an asymmetric way of destroying our satellites. The bottom line is this: The United States better get serious about defending our eyes and ears in space and now the satellites that direct so much of our military activity. Other countries have the ability to turn off the light. They know where the switch is. In times of war, we cannot be blind and deaf and be denied our space assets. And yet virtually by turning off the switch, other countries have that capability. Isn't it about time we begin the first steps of developing a capability against that? I note, by the way, that the $10 million program out of a budget for missile defense of over $8 billion is hardly enough to color general Obering's claims that this would be a good program for us to begin research on. I hope my colleagues, when this amendment is voted on, will think about the future, will think about the fact that they have plenty of opportunities to stop a program should it ever evolve into a space- based missile defense program. If they want to stop that, stop that, but don't use that as an argument to stop research on a satellite protection program.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on Monday, GEN Peter Pace completed his term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A highly decorated officer, GEN Peter Pace was the first Marine officer to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in our Nation's history. General Pace graduated the U.S. Naval Academy in 1967. After completing the Basic School in 1968, he deployed to Vietnam as a marine rifle platoon commander. After Vietnam, General Pace served overseas in Thailand, South Korea, Japan, and Somalia. His style as a humble commander, selflessly dedicated to his obligations, brought accolades from both superior officers and enlisted soldiers. General Pace has held command at nearly every level, and excelled in all respects in the uniformed service of his country. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace served as an adviser to the President a role he conducted with unquestionable professionalism. As a confidential advisor and military man, General Pace did his utmost to steer clear of the public disputes and political battles that so often afflict Washington decisionmaking. General Pace's professional conduct, through a period of time marked by new and uniquely difficult tribulations, is a model for those to come. A strong voice for providing security to Iraq's population and holding areas cleared of terrorists, General Pace's counsel has played a role in building consensus for the military strategy that is producing successes on the ground in Iraq. It should be noted that General Pace assumed his duties in the face of a rising insurgency in Iraq. He leaves office with a successful strategy in place, an improving situation in Iraq, and troop draw downs taking place due to progress on the ground. In short, he has left his office in better condition than it was when he entered it. For his exemplary service he has earned the gratitude of a safer, more secure Nation.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wished to, first of all, echo the comments of my colleague from Utah. Fred Kagan is an expert, and what he had to say in that report and in his subsequent summaries of it is something all our colleagues should be familiar with because he makes the very clear point that, as this mission is working, right now is not the time to change the mission and go back to what it was prior to General Petraeus's arrival on the scene. Yet we still have Members of this body and the other body trying to undercut the Petraeus plan in one way or another. The most recent effort to do this is one which is especially distressing. Let me give a little bit of background. First, I wish to note that our Democratic colleagues have not taken very long to reestablish their reputation--well deserved--as the tax- and-spend party, as my colleague from Texas pointed out earlier. Now that the Democratic Party is in control of the Congress, the agenda is very clear. But yesterday, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee went a step too far because he proposed a new tax on every American. This one, ostensibly, to fund the war. Now, there are a lot of different excuses for raising taxes, as my colleague from Texas pointed out a while ago, but I don't think we need a new tax. If we did, our Democratic colleagues would not be proposing $23 billion in more spending than the President proposed in his budget. In other words, if a lack of revenue is the problem, then let us not keep spending more than has been proposed in the budget. The tax-and- spend priorities of the Democratic majority are very clear. No, the real reason for Chairman Obey's plan to raise more taxes is to change our strategy in Iraq, and that is very clear from his own comments. Along with the tax he proposed, in fact, he announced he would not allow his committee to move forward with the bill the President has requested to fund the troops in Iraq. This is not the Defense authorization or Defense appropriations bill, which funds the Pentagon and all the military activities over the course of next year. No, this is the money for the troops who are fighting right now in Iraq. As I said, the chairman made it very clear that was precisely what he intended. In fact, quoting from a Wall Street Journal article today, he said: Choosing not to move legislation is our strongest card at this point. Well, this is not a card game, and you shouldn't be playing with the lives of our troops by cutting off their funding while they are out in the field. If you wish to make a policy point that we should change our strategy in Iraq, change our mission, there are ways to do it without cutting off the funds while the troops are out there trying to perform the mission we have sent them to perform. I thought the comment of my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, as reported in the Washington Times in a story this morning, was charitable and interesting. Senator Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican, said Mr. Obey's threat to block war funds was pretty gutsy. But I don't see how it would work. In the end, you have to feed the soldiers. That is the point. You can cut back Pentagon funding, you can try to pass resolutions that call for a change in strategy, but at the end of the day, you have to feed the soldiers. You can't refuse to send the money to Iraq while the troops are there or you are literally pulling out the rug from under the troops. My colleague, Senator Graham from South Carolina, put it this way: The plan to starve the troops of funds would be cheered by America's enemies. This would be a blessing to al-Qaida, which is getting its brains beat out in Iraq. I remember when Bob Dole ran for the Presidency, and he was trying to make some pretty important points and people didn't appear to be listening to him. At one point, he said: Where is the outrage? And that is the question I ask here. Where is the outrage of pulling the rug out from under our troops while they are in theater trying to do what we have sent them there to do? This is not just bad policy, it represents a failure to support the troops. Everybody around here says: Well, we all support the troops, we disagree with the policy of being in Iraq. Now we have come to the point where we are going to try to change that policy by not supporting the troops? I don't think this is good policy. I don't think it is fair to the troops whom we have sent into harm's way, and it is consistent, as I said before, with this whole tax-and-spend ideology. Try to change policy by withdrawing support for the troops but raise taxes on the American taxpayer? It makes no sense at all, unless you put it in the context with where the Democratic leadership has been going now for some time with respect to the Iraq war. Let me go back a little and quote from an article yesterday in the Associated Press. Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding. Well, it didn't take long for that to come true. The Associated Press noted: The difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat. I might say the Speaker of the House has already announced her opposition to this new tax plan. Democrats are indeed divided. But for those who are in authority to refuse to move the legislation forward, and who talk about it in terms of it is the best card I have to play, have the ability to stop the funding at the very time that the troops need the money in the field. Progress in Iraq, obviously, has been widely reported. An editorial today in Investors Business Daily says: The new strategy being implemented by General Petraeus seems to have worked extraordinarily well. Al-Qaida has been backpedaling furiously. So right at the time the strategy is working, we are going to pull the money out? It makes no sense. The Washington Post reports today: The numbers of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians reported killed across the country last month fell to their lowest levels in more than a year, a sharp decrease in violent deaths that American military officials attribute in part to the thousands of additional soldiers who have arrived here this year. And the New York Times today notes: The number of violent civilian deaths in Iraq dropped precipitously in September compared with the previous month. So at a time when the strategy of General Petraeus is working, our friends on the other side of the aisle are deciding to pull the funding so we can no longer continue the operation. That makes no sense at all. But it does fit in with this larger strategy, as I said, to find any way they can to change the course in the war. Let me conclude with this point. It is now October 3, past the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, and yet the Democratic majority has not passed one single appropriations bill to the President for his signature to fund the government next year. It appears to me there is a reason for this. The Associated Press noted the following in an article on September 30: The most basic job of Congress is to pass the bills that pay the costs of running the government. After criticizing the Republicans for falling down on the job last year, Democrats are now the ones stumbling. And Roll Call had an editorial 3 days before, and I quote from part of it: Senate Democrats complain that Republican obstructionism and President Bush's veto threats against nine House-passed bills caused this year's delay. But the arguments don't hold water. Instead, it appears likely that the Democrats' failure to pass these spending bills is part of the plan designed to create a giant Omnibus appropriations bill which will tie very directly into their tax-and-spend policies. According to an editorial today in Congressional Quarterly: Democrats may be planning to use a widely supported veterans' bill as the vehicle for their additional spending. Frustrated veterans' groups are trying to pressure Congress to quickly pass a veterans' and military construction bill and not use it as a vehicle for an omnibus measure. Now, this wouldn't be the first time this kind of game has been played, but especially if it is on the Veterans and Military Construction bill, or if it is the Defense authorization bill that was held up for so long, and now the measure to try to fund the troops in Iraq, there is a very disturbing pattern here. Playing games with money for veterans and the military in order to get more taxes and spending? That is wrong. It is wrong. The American people need to know that at the very time when General Petraeus's strategy is showing very positive results in Iraq, it is the Democratic plan, at least in the House of Representatives, to hold up that funding, not because there is a lack of money, not because we need a tax increase to fund it but in order to try to change the course of the President's strategy. That is playing games with the money the troops need in the field. Again, as Senator Domenici said, it is a pretty gutsy move, but in the end, it would not work because you have to feed the soldiers.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by noting that, along with my colleagues, I support reauthorization of SCHIP. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate today is not just an SCHIP reauthorization; it is an SCHIP expansion, based on the following misguided principles: First, it would turn a program for low-income children into a program for adults as well. Second, it expands SCHIP to cover children from higher income families. Third, it covers people already insured, not just the uninsured. Fourth, it circumvents budget rules to hide a $41 billion cost not paid for under the bill. I will address the first issue. When we authorized this program in 1997, the Republican-led Congress intended SCHIP to provide health coverage to low-income, uninsured children. Ten years later, the program created for children covers adults. In fiscal year 2006, 14 States enrolled over 700,000 adults in SCHIP. In fact, this year, 13 percent of SCHIP funds will go to adults other than pregnant women. For example, Wisconsin covers almost twice as many adults as children under the SCHIP program, spending 76 percent of its SCHIP funds on adults. Illinois spends 62 percent on adults. Rhode Island spends 54 percent on adults. New Jersey spends half of its money on adults. So what happens under the bill before us? It allows the States, with these existing waivers, to continue enrolling new parents--adults, obviously--at a higher reimbursement rate than Medicaid. There is no ``a'' in SCHIP. If Congress created SCHIP for low-income children, we in Congress should ensure that is where the funds go; otherwise, we are being dishonest with the American people and we should rename the program. Second, when the program was created, in 1997, we targeted low-income children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to obtain private health insurance. We never intended for all children, regardless of the income of their families, to become dependent on a Government health insurance program. That is not what is happening today. Eleven States have income thresholds at or above 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. Rather than refocusing SCHIP on low-income children, nothing in the bill prohibits States from increasing eligibility levels above 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. In fact, the bill grandfathers in the two States with the Nation's highest levels and at a higher reimbursement rate than the rest of the country. Why should Arizonans, my constituents, pay their taxpayer dollars, which are intended for low-income children, to be sent to New York and New Jersey to cover families earning up to $82,600 a year? I have heard some say over and over again this will only happen if the administration allows it. That is not true. First, I direct my colleagues' attention to page 82, lines 3 through 11 of the bill. It states there is an exception for any State with an approved State plan amendment or waiver--that is New Jersey--or a State that has enacted a State law--that is New York. There is an exception. So it is not that the President can stop this. The bill provides the exception. To clarify the policy even further, page 82 includes new language that was not in the Senate-passed bill. This new language reinforces that States should have the flexibility to set their own income eligibility levels, no matter how high, making it nearly impossible for any administration to reject such State requests. Third, very importantly, the bill guts an August 17 letter issued by the administration designed to make sure that States enroll low-income families first and foremost. They said you have to make sure 95 percent of your low-income, eligible kids are enrolled in the SCHIP program before you can expand it to cover the higher income families. Well, that has been taken out of the bill and the bill guts the provision. From my analysis, nothing in this bill gives the administration the clear authority to prevent taxpayer dollars from being sent to higher income families. Even the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan advocacy group, warns that the bill ``fails to target new entitlement spending at those most in need.'' Third, as a result of expanding SCHIP to children from higher income families and some adults, the bill ``crowds out'' private health insurance and substitutes that coverage with government-run, taxpayer- subsidized insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2 million people will drop their private coverage under this bill. For every two individuals added to SCHIP, or Medicaid Program, one drops private coverage. This is why we say it is a step toward government-run health care--you take people with good private health insurance and take them off of the private health insurance roll and substitute in the government health insurance program. For the newly eligible populations--the people not yet enrolled in the program--CBO shows a one-for-one replacement, meaning that for each 600,000 newly insured individuals, 600,000 individuals go off of private coverage. Is that what we are all about, what we should be doing here? Should Congress not focus on ways to provide health care coverage to the uninsured, rather than to those who already have insurance? Of course, the answer is yes. Finally, the SCHIP bill is not paid for. Under our rules, we are required to state the cost of a program such as this over 10 years and pay for it over that time period. Under the bill, SCHIP spending goes up every year for 5 years and, all of a sudden, magically, artificially, the spending drops off precipitously, as if there is no more need for it. It basically disappears. Obviously, the reason for that is to circumvent the budget rules and avoid paying for the bill. The assumption, obviously, is artificial and wrong and everybody knows it. The program is, in fact, going to continue out over the full 10 years; it doesn't stop after 5. So you need to make up the last 5 years. How much does that cost? According to the CBO, $41 billion will be needed to sustain the program for the last 5 years of the 10-year program. In other words, the bill has in it a $41 billion hole. If you fill in that hole over the course of the 10 years, the cost of the bill exceeds $110 billion. That is why some of us appreciate the President's determination to veto the bill as too much spending on a program that has been expanded way beyond its original purpose and is substituting private health insurance coverage for a new government program. A future Congress will have no other choice than to disenroll millions of children, which will not happen, or more likely, raise taxes to fill that $110 billion cost. Of course, it will be our children who will bear this bill's deficit. I will conclude where I started. Like everybody else in the Chamber, I support the reauthorization of SCHIP. I don't support its expansion in the way it has been done under this bill. Republicans have offered a fiscally responsible alternative that reauthorizes SCHIP for 5 years, preserving health care coverage for millions of low-income children. It adds 1.3 million new children to SCHIP. It is offset without new taxes or budget gimmicks. It minimizes the reduction in private health coverage by targeting it to low-income children. We should pass an SCHIP extension and we should work toward a reauthorization, such as the Republican alternative, that is fiscally responsible and upholds SCHIP's original intent. Doing so is a step toward renewing our commitment to America's children.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am checking to see if there is anybody on our side who wishes to speak for any amount of time. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to make an observation and thank all the people who were involved in this effort. For our colleagues who might be listening, the reason there is an agreement and there will be no objection is because people on both sides of the aisle were willing to make some concessions to the others with regard to the wording of these two resolutions. I would hope they would be both strongly supported. I have no objection.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to speak to two items that are before us as we are considering the Defense authorization bill this morning. The first has to do with an amendment that has been offered by Senator Lieberman and myself and others to declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, which would, if we do that, permit us to engage in economic sanction activity against the financing operations of the IRGC. That is important, because according to all of the evidence we have, it is the IRGC that has been primarily responsible for the infusion into Iraq of the very dangerous equipment that has been causing great harm to our troops there, especially the new superpenetrator devices that are blowing up not just humvees but also even Abrams tanks. It is the IRGC that is responsible for the training of Iraqis to be fighting our troops in Iraq and generally bringing the Iranian Government's anti-American activities from Iran into Iraq. It is because of the IRGC's activities as a terrorist organization that our troops are dying in portions of Iraq today and, therefore, totally fitting for us to express our sense to the administration that it should designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, thus, permitting us to invoke these economic sanctions against it. The IRGC, interestingly enough, engages in a great deal of financial activity around the world, which makes these particular sanctions especially appropriate and potentially very effective. I am pleased it appears there will be an agreement on some slight modifications of language of the amendment which will permit us to, presumably, have a near unanimous vote when this amendment is considered, perhaps later this morning but certainly today. I am looking forward to a colloquy with Senator Levin and Senator Lieberman so we can discuss our joint understanding of precisely what this joint resolution means and be able to act upon it so we can send a very clear message to the Iranian Government that its involvement against U.S. troops in Iraq will not be countenanced. That is especially poignant today after the appearance by the Iranian President at a major U.S. university and his appearance today at the United Nations, in which it is pretty clear he will say just about anything to advance what he believes is the cause animating Iran's activities in the world today, whether it is truthful or not. It seems to me, until there is a firm push back against this man and against the regime which he runs and the terrorist arm of that regime, the IRGC, they are going to continue to do what they do. And that is why it is especially poignant today, as I said, that the Senate act on this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The other matter I wish to briefly talk about is another amendment that is pending before us offered by the Senator from Delaware. This is an amendment that contains several preamble statements about the situation in Iraq, and then calls upon the Iraqi Government to convene a council which will result in the creation of federal regions within Iraq. This is something the Iraqi Constitution and a special law that was passed permit but does not mandate. It seems to me it would be a very big mistake on the part of the U.S. Government to be seen as demanding that the Iraqi Government take this step, which some would see as a breaking apart of the nation of Iraq, a partitioning of the country of Iraq into different pieces. The people of Iraq have the authority to do that under this special law and under their Constitution. They fully have intended to have some kind of a conference to consider whether to do it. But I think it would be a big mistake for us to be seen as dictating to the Iraqi people how they want their Government ultimately to be governed, to exist, and to operate. The creation of federal regions may be an appropriate way for them to do this; it may not. But that decision should be left to them. I think there has been an assumption that at least one federal region in the Kurdish north would be recognized, but there are questions about whether other federal regions would be. I recognize there are some in the United States, and even in this body, who believe it would be best for Iraq if it were divided into federal regions. Maybe they are right; maybe they are not right. But it is clearly up to the Iraqi people to make this decision. So were we to express ourselves on this, I think it would also be important for us to confirm our understanding and belief and commitment to the sovereignty of the people of Iraq to make this decision, and to make it clear nothing in this particular resolution in any way is intended to undercut the sovereignty of the Iraqi people to make this decision for themselves. Otherwise, I fear the resolution could be read as the United States dictating to the Iraqis what their country is going to look like in the future and especially because it relates to the partitioning of the country. It seems to me this would be a very arrogant step on our part and something that obviously we do not want to be seen as doing. I also would make the point that some of the recitations at the beginning of this resolution are misleading, if not outright wrong. It talks about the sectarian violence in the country. There is sectarian violence, but it totally ignores the activities of al-Qaida. Since al- Qaida has spawned much of the sectarian violence, it seems to me this is an incredibly important omission, especially because there are some in this body who talk about a change in mission, eventually having our mission in Iraq evolve to simply a counterterrorism mission, recognizing that al-Qaida is a significant force in the country, and we need to deal with al-Qaida. We have al-Qaida on the run in the country, but al-Qaida is not gone by any means. In addition to that, al-Qaida spawns some of the sectarian violence as, for example, it did when it blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra, thus inciting Shiites to attack Sunnis and starting a cycle of violence which continues to this day. To simply refer to sectarian violence without any reference to the terrorism that is occurring because of al-Qaida would, I think, be a glaring omission and would raise significant questions. Especially if there are those who suggest we should eliminate a message of counterinsurgency, this is also totally contradictory because if you refer to all of the violence in the country as sectarian violence, but there is no counterinsurgency mission for the United States, then basically what you are saying is we simply leave that country to the tender mercies of all those groups engaged in this sectarian violence. That, we know, is antithetical to any kind of peaceful resolution to the disagreements that exist in that country and the eventual reconciliation of the people of that country. So it seems to me a resolution of this type can do more harm than good in creating confusion about what the understanding of the United States of the situation in the country is, No. 1; No. 2, failing to recognize the prominent role that al-Qaida is playing and the importance of our mission in dealing with al-Qaida; and, third, suggesting it is the position of the United States to dictate to the Iraqi people that they need to partition their country when, in fact, that is a decision that needs to be left to them, which they could make if they wanted to under their Constitution, but certainly are not required to, and nothing we do should suggest we would require them to do so. We have to recognize the sovereignty of that country. The final point I wish to make is simply this: We have been on the Defense authorization bill now for 2 weeks--14 days. We were on it for many days a couple months ago, until the bill was pulled. There has been a lot of criticism, especially by my colleague, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, who has made the point that the time is long past that we should have passed this Defense authorization bill, which contains so many important elements for our troops--the pay raise for the troops, the wounded warrior legislation, and other important elements that are critical for our Armed Services. For us to continue to simply use this bill as a vehicle to deal with endless resolutions dealing with Iraq--I gather there are a couple more that are on the way--is a misuse of the legislative process and of this important piece of legislation. So I hope my colleagues would conclude one of these days that we have to pass the Defense authorization bill for the good of the troops and stop this endless debate about trying to change our policy or missions in Iraq. We have had that debate over and over and over again. We are going to have it again in the future. But let's not let it dominate everything we do in this body. I hope we can get on to the final passage on the Defense authorization bill soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I wanted to clarify one thing. Through no fault of the Senator from Delaware--he was under the impression that certain language he agreed to, to change his resolution, had come from me, and he had reason to believe that. It did not come from me, but that is not his mistake. But I did want to clarify the record that the language that he had agreed to had not been language that came from me. For reasons I will not go into at this point, I still have concerns about the resolution as a result. But it is not the fault of the Senator from Delaware that he was under the impression that it was language from me.

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, although I supported the Senate-passed version of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, I cannot support the conference version of WRDA because it significantly exceeds the costs of both the Senate and House-passed bills and includes many projects outside the Army Corps of Engineers' traditional responsibilities. I am not alone in my opposition. Indeed, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant Secretary of the Army have indicated to Congress that the President will veto the bill in its current form. The conference reported version of WRDA would cost approximately $21 billion, which is about $7 billion more than the Senate and House- passed versions. The $21 billion ``compromise'' reached in conference is not a fiscally responsible bill and, therefore, should not pass. The conference version also inappropriately contains many projects outside the Corps' primary missions of navigation, flood damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration, such as environmental infrastructure projects. These environmental infrastructure projects divert vital resources away from the Corps' primary responsibilities, and add to the backlog of Corps projects. This is especially troubling since according to the Congressional Research Service the Corps' backlog of authorized projects is currently estimated to be 800 totaling nearly $38 billion to $60 billion. I do recognize that the conference version of WRDA contains a number of important projects, some of which are located in my home state of Arizona. I would like to thank the Environment and Public Works Committee for including many of the projects I requested in the bill. It is important to note, however, that because of the backlog of Corps projects and concerns relating to WRDA's costs, I limited the requests I made. The same cannot be said for the conference version of WRDA. Consequently, I cannot support the bill in its current form.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first let me compliment my colleague from Connecticut, who is largely responsible for the idea of this amendment and much of the text of it, for his leadership over the years in trying to ensure we take appropriate action against Iran as it confronts America, both with regard to its nuclear program development as well as, more currently, its activities against our forces in Iraq. He has been truly inspirational, and I appreciate that leadership. The Senator from Connecticut has well laid out the case for this sense-of-the-Senate amendment that the U.S. Government should designate specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization and include it on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. In addition, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment urges the use of our diplomatic and economic tools to pressure the Iranian regime not only to abandon its nuclear program but also to stop the use of its surrogates against our forces in Iraq. There have been only two questions raised about this amendment. I am hoping and expecting that it will receive very strong bipartisan support tomorrow, assuming we are able to vote on it tomorrow. The only two questions were, first of all, Can this be read in any way as an authorization of military action against Iran? I will assure my colleagues that is absolutely not our intention--in fact, quite the opposite. This is intended to obviate the necessity for such military conduct. Nobody wants to have to engage in military action against Iran directly, but what we would like to do is get them to stop killing our troops. One way to do that is to put economic pressure on the organization that is doing the killing, and that is what this amendment would ask the administration to do. Secondly, there is the question of whether the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is the appropriate entity to list on the Specially Designated Global Terrorists, and the answer to that is clearly yes. As I will point out in a moment, we have incontrovertible evidence that this is the group, as Senator Lieberman pointed out, that is causing the trouble. Some have said: Well, we should just designate the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as the terrorist entity. That is like saying the Mafia isn't really responsible for what the Mafia does; it is only their hit men. The Quds Force is the group of hit men for this entity. This entity is clearly the overall entity responsible for this action, and it is the entity that engages in the economic activity which supplies the financial resources to the Quds Force. So it would not be adequate, obviously, just to designate the Quds Force, which is an arm of the Revolutionary Guard, as the terrorist entity. What evidence do we actually have that this is the entity of the Iranian Government that is doing all the dirty work? Well, there are many public statements, and I will quote from some of them. Senator Lieberman quoted some of them. There is also other information, as one might imagine, and my colleagues should be encouraged to consult with terrorist agencies if they have any questions about the specific involvement of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. But it is clear that this is the entity on which we should be focusing. Senator Lieberman quoted one of General Petraeus's statements in his testimony before the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services on September 10 that it is apparent Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps--Quds Force--is causing this proxy war. Here is something else General Petraeus also recently stated: We know that it goes as high as Suleimani-- And his full name is BG Qassem Suleimani-- who is the head of the Quds Force of the Iranian Republican Guards Corps. That is quite high level. We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country. There is a specific reference to the IRGC. In addition, Brigadier General Bergner, who is a spokesman for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, recently talked about the Quds Force operation in three camps near Teheran, and he said: The Quds Force, along with Hezbollah instructors, train approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time, sending them back to Iraq organized into these special groups. They are being taught how to use Explosively Formed Penetrators, mortars, rockets, as well as intelligence, sniper and killing operations. In addition to training, the Quds Force also supplies the special groups with weapons and funding of 750,000 to 3 million U.S. dollars a month. Now, Senator Lieberman also referred to General Odierno. When I was in Iraq last, I was ushered into General Odierno's office to have a very candid discussion with him, and what an impressive military officer he is. He said: Come look at what I have on the table here, and he proceeded to show us a great deal of military hardware and described to us what it was. Essentially, it was all of the things--examples of many of the things they had found supplied by Iran, the weaponry that is killing American troops. On one, he said: Here, look at this. He said: You probably can't read Farsi, but this says, ``Made in Iran.'' Well, I accept his statement of what the Farsi says: ``Made in Iran.'' He also showed us the earth penetrators. Before we went to Iraq, we were in Kuwait at the base from which a lot of our equipment has come back out of Iraq for repair or disposition, and I say ``disposition'' because some of it has been so devastated by the explosion of these weapons smuggled in from Iran that there is nothing much left of them. What was so impressive--or depressive--to see was to see the biggest, heaviest tank in the world, an Abrams tank, blown apart by these things as if it were a stick of dynamite in a tin can. The force and the destructive capability was almost beyond belief. We saw examples of that in General Odierno's office--a canister about this big with a concave shape in the middle that he said is the shaped charge that explodes up into the tank or the humvee or whatever the military vehicle is and devastates it. In any event, they have no doubt whatsoever that this equipment which is killing American troops is coming from Iran. The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' that was just released on September 18 of this year states: Most of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--Quds Force. For the period of June through the end of August, the Explosively Formed Penetrator events-- The equipment to which I just referred-- are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May. There is a very interesting story in Time magazine, a recent issue, quoting a former CIA explosive expert who still works in Iraq as saying that these explosively formed projectiles we are finding in Iran, that: The Iranians are making them. End of story. His argument is that only a state is capable of manufacturing these EFPs. In other words, these are manufactured by people officially connected with the government. They have access to the equipment and material and technology to make them. It is a complicated process that is involved in the making of the weapons I described. Incidentally, this same individual is convinced that the IRGC is helping Iraqi Shia militias sight in their mortars on the Green Zone, helping them to make sure they actually land on the Green Zone: The way they're dropping them in, in neat grids, tells me all I need to know that the Shi'a are getting help. And there's no doubt it's Iranian, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The investigations into these particular attacks, incidentally, were also discussed in an August 2005 Time report about an Iranian operative who headed a network of insurgents created, again, by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and that they began introducing these EFPs into the country at the beginning of that year. Abu Mustafa al- Sheibani, an Iranian operative who headed a network of insurgents created by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, introduced the EFPs into the country in early 2007. U.S. military sources claimed to have captured EFPs that displayed the hallmarks of Iranian-manufactured weaponry. This is all IRGC. This is the entity which would be declared the terrorist group under our amendment. Ray Takehy, of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently said this-- I am speaking of the IRGC: They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines--even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling. I am going on to quote him: Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration. This makes the point Senator Lieberman made before--that this Revolutionary Guard Corps is deeply involved in economic activity. They rely on financing for a lot of their activity. It is this vulnerability which causes us to believe that if they are listed as a state-sponsored terrorist group, we can, through the use of the sanctions that are available to us, inhibit and impede and ultimately stop their activity. The Revolutionary Guard Corps plays a key role in the military industries in Iran. According to Anthony Cordesman, who is a distinguished expert in this area and who is currently with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, they have been involved in the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, among other things. Interestingly, also, the unanimously passed U.N. Security Council resolutions sanctioning Iran have listed several IRGC entities as being involved in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activities. Finally, the UNSCR resolutions list high-ranking IRGC personnel for their involvement in these programs, including the deputy commander of the IRGC, the chief of the IRGC joint staff, the commanders of IRGC ground forces, the commander of the IRGC Navy, the commander of the Basij Resistance Force, the commander of the Quds Force, and the Deputy Interior Minister for Security Affairs, who is also an IRGC officer. I note that these resolutions, 1737 and 1747, which were immediately implemented by our European partners, have not yet been fully implemented by our own Treasury Department. I cite all of this evidence and these quotations to simply make the point that there is absolutely no doubt that it is the IRGC that is involved in these activities against our American forces and is responsible for their deaths in Iraq. It is the IRGC that needs to be named to the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list. I misspoke before and said the state-sponsored list. I meant the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list. By being so listed, we can employ our financial and immigration sanctions, which could include them potentially blocking assets and even the prosecution of supporters who would provide funding to them. It could also involve refusal of visas and deportations of members. It would allow us to block the assets--in the United States--of any foreign company doing business with them, in effect, cutting them out of American markets. Any lesser sanctions, such as focusing on the Quds Force, would not in any way solve the problem. That is like the hit men for the Mafia; you have to get to the Mafia. We cannot settle for symbolism. This is serious. As I said, finally-- and this is my last point--our resolution should not be read as an authorization for the use of force. I think we might even be changing a couple words in it to make that crystal clear. That was not our intention. To the extent that anybody might try to use that as an excuse for not supporting it, you will not have that excuse. We took out a couple of phrases that were pointed out as potentially offering that degree of support. This is not such an authorization for the use of military action. This is designed to prevent that. So if your concern is that we might ultimately be forced--or some people might believe we might be forced--to take action against Iran, and you want to void that result, this kind of economic sanction is within our power as Americans. We don't have to rely upon anybody else in the world to do it; we can do that. We know it can hurt them, and it goes to the entity causing harm to our forces and, therefore, we believe it is an appropriate action for the administration to take. This would put the Senate on record as urging the administration to take this action as soon as possible, so we can end the actions of the IRGC. I compliment my colleague from Connecticut again for his leadership and sponsorship of the resolution. I hope tomorrow we will vote on it and our colleagues will be supportive of it.