Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Then if my friend from Georgia will allow, I gather the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, will be next.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to address the amendment offered by Senator Levin and Senator Reed and to explain why I will vote against cloture on the amendment tomorrow morning. I think it is important to explain that because my friend from Louisiana who spoke before me had behind her a sign that said: Let us vote. We may see that sign again. I wish to indicate that we are going to have a vote. We are going to have a vote tomorrow morning. And the question is: Will we sustain what has been a bedrock policy of the Senate to require 60 votes for a matter of great importance that comes before this body, particularly a matter where there is a lot at stake? This amendment offered by my colleagues from Michigan and Rhode Island is a very serious amendment. Some of us believe it would have disastrous consequences for the security of the United States of America, for the safety of our troops in Iraq, for the stability of the region, for any hope for democracy in the Middle East, and a better future for the people of that part of the world than the suicidal death and hatred al-Qaida offers them. But you know, I have recollection of times in the Senate hearing the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. He has made, over the years, some compelling arguments for why the Senate has this unusual procedure of requiring 60 votes on matters of great importance. I am not quoting him directly, but this is consistent with the vision of one of the Framers--I believe it was Madison, I am not sure--who said, if you will, that the Senate is the saucer in which the Congress will cool the coffee. As Senator Byrd said much more to the point, we in this Chamber have had for a long time this ability to request 60 votes to pass a matter when there are Members of the Senate--and I am one in this case--who believe the passage of this matter would have a profoundly negative effect on our country and its security. I know some of my colleagues disagree with me, of course. But I am exercising my right within the tradition of the Senate to do what senior colleagues have advised over the years: to stop the passions, the political passions of a moment from sweeping across Congress into law and altering our future permanently. I have done it on other matters. I have done it on environmental matters, where I think something proposed will have so adverse an effect on some of the natural wonders that God has given the United States of America that I have said: No, I am going to be part of a group to demand 60 votes because if I allow this to pass by less, there will be an irreversible change that will occur. With respect to my colleagues who are saying let us vote, we will vote. But the question on that vote is will we ask for 60 votes to adopt this very significant amendment? I say it is in the best traditions of the Senate to require 60 votes before this amendment is adopted. Second, before I get to the merits of the amendment or my opinion about it, I wish to respond to something my friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, said about the bipartisan meeting we had this morning, people of different opinions on this issue discussing in a closed room across a table looking for common ground. I wish to express my own sense of disappointment, sadness, though unfortunately in these very partisan times not surprise, that this debate we are having which reaches a kind of pitch, a moment of confrontation on the Levin-Reed amendment which would mandate a withdrawal from Iraq, that this debate is so partisan. I have a point of view about the war in Iraq and what I think is best for our security and future policy in Iraq. I know people have different points of view. I respect that. This is a difficult, a very difficult matter on which to reach judgment. So people, of course, can have different points of view, but why do we divide in those different points of view on party lines? There is no inherent reason why that should happen. It is a sign of what ails our political system, what afflicts our Federal Government and hamstrings it, what frustrates and ultimately angers the American people about what they see here because what they see is that too often we seem to be playing partisan politics, we seem to be in a kind of partisan tug of war. The net result of that is that nothing gets done. Wars are always controversial. Wars have been controversial throughout our history. But rarely have the divisions between those who support a war and oppose it or support particular policies associated with it and oppose it been as partisan as they are at this moment. It has to stop. If it doesn't stop on Iraq, I believe our Nation will be weakened seriously. We have to find ways, no matter what the partisan pressures are, to come together as Americans to defend our Nation against those who hate us all--al-Qaida, Iran, the fanatics running around who exhort the tens of thousands to shout ``Death to America.'' They have been doing it since the revolution of 1979. They do it weekly throughout Iran: ``Death to America.'' Surely we understand they don't distinguish between Republicans and Democrats when they shout ``Death to America. We should have the common sense, let alone a sense of responsibility to our country, to come together and defend our Nation against those who want to destroy us, as al-Qaida began to do on 9/11. I regret the partisanship that characterizes this debate. I wish to talk very briefly about how we got here, not going over it in any detail. This Congress authorized the President to take action to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the administration had attempted, through the United Nations Security Council, to get Saddam to take certain steps, including proving to us he had destroyed the weapons of mass destruction, he had filed an inventory with the United Nations Security Council as a condition of the truce and end to the gulf war of 1991. I don't wish to revisit that. I know people look back at him and think they were deceived in why we went to war. I think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. But this takes me to this point. For 3 years afterward, this country followed a strategy in Iraq that didn't work. We followed a strategy in Iraq for too long that didn't work. I strongly supported the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and deeply desired that we do everything we could not just to overthrow him but to try to create within Iraq a new Iraq, a free Iraq, a self- governing Iraq that would give hope to people throughout the Arab world, the Muslim world, of a better future than the one that al-Qaida offers them, which is a return to a millennium ago, away from the modern world, but we erred for 3 years. Many of us cried out that we did not have enough troops there, we were following a strategy that did not work, too few troops and not focusing on al-Qaida training, an insufficient ability to do that, and letting the terrorists essentially take hold of the country. Finally, last year, the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, changed the course in Iraq. He changed the leadership of the Pentagon, which was critically necessary. He brought in a new Secretary of Defense, consulted with experts on all sides about what to do, how to improve what was happening in Iraq, and adopted a totally new strategy. That is why when I hear people in this debate saying we need a change of course in Iraq, well, we got a change of course, finally. It was later than I hoped for, but, finally, at the end of last year, beginning in February, the counteroffensive, called a surge, and a new general, a great general--a general in the tradition of Maxwell Taylor, General Abrams, a general who was called on in a very difficult situation, probably the single most informed leader on counterinsurgency in our military, GEN David Petraeus, to take charge of these troops--and he gave him 30,000 additional troops. The evidence thus far is incomplete, because as has been said, and will be said again, the surge was just fully staffed about a month ago. But you have to look at the statistics. I know the benchmark that came in, the interim one last week, was mixed. But on the security side, which is what the surge was first aimed at, deaths from sectarian violence are way down in Baghdad, more than half the city is now under the control of American and Iraqi forces, and normalcy is returning to many parts of the capital city, and Anbar Province, the story is well known now. Basically, the additional troops and the new strategy enabled us to convince the Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar, which al- Qaida was going to make the capital of its Islamist extremist caliphate, We convinced the tribal leaders we were there to stay, so they came to our side, and al-Qaida is on the run--and for the first time. Always before we had the strategy where we would chase the terrorists out of a community, a city, in Baghdad, and we would leave and then they would come back. This time, in Anbar Province, we left some of our marines and some of the Iraqi security forces, working with the Sunni indigenous tribal leaders, and what did we do? We followed al-Qaida on the run to Diyala Province, to Baquba city, the major city there, and we have them on the run there as well. As a result, the tribal leaders there are beginning to come over to our side. So this surge, interim as the reports are, is, on the ground, working. Now comes the Levin-Reed amendment. I wish to say to my colleagues this is not the Levin-Reed amendment we voted on earlier this year. That amendment did require the beginning of a withdrawal of troops within 120 days of passage, as this amendment does. But that amendment set a goal--G-O-A-L--a goal for our troops to be substantially withdrawn from Iraq by the end of March of next year. It is no longer a goal in this Levin-Reed amendment. It is a mandate, a rigid deadline that by the end of April of next year most of our troops are out of Iraq. A core group is left, presumably with the stated purpose to train the Iraqis and to fight al-Qaida, which is exactly what the previous policy that failed was aimed at doing. Some have said this is the only amendment with teeth. It does have teeth. But I think we have to ask: Who does it bite? I think it bites our hope for success in Iraq. It bites our troops, as they proceed day in and day out, courageously, compassionately, effectively. It bites our hope for keeping al-Qaida and Iran out of controlling Iraq. This amendment mandates a retreat to begin in 4 months, 120 days, regardless of what is happening on the ground. This is not a debate about whether to change course in Iraq, it is a debate about whether to accept and embrace defeat in Iraq. We have changed course, as I said before. This is a debate about whether we are going to give our generals and our troops the chance that they say they need to succeed, and succeed they know they can, or if we are going to order them to retreat--we order them to retreat--as they on the ground are risking their lives every day and succeeding. We are going to, if this amendment passes, impose a deadline that is as inflexible as it is arbitrary. I say this with respect, but I say it from the bottom of my heart. This is a deadline for an American defeat, one that we will pay for, I fear, for a generation to come. Let us be absolutely clear again about what the amendment we are debating now would do. If adopted, this amendment would literally put this Congress between the Commander in Chief, our generals, and our soldiers in the field. So just as our troops are on the offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq, just as our troops have the enemy on the run, this amendment would reach 5,000 miles across the ocean and put our troops on the run in retreat and defeat. I will tell you this, the American military, the best in the world-- courageous, resourceful, fighting a tough fight but adjusting to it, resilient, finding ways to succeed--the American military will never lose the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq, if it is to be lost, will be lost as a result of a loss of political will here at home, and you have to judge the consequences of that. Each one of us has to. In the midst of an unpredictable war, this amendment would strip our military commanders not only of the troops they say they need to succeed--this amendment would remove the troops from our commanding generals--it would strip them of the authority and the ability to adapt to changing conditions, which, after all, is what success in war is all about, putting America's military in a legislative straitjacket. I am going to do everything I can to stop that from happening, and that is why I am going to vote against cloture. This amendment is wrong. I truly believe it is dangerous. In fact, this amendment should not even be considered now. I welcome the debate, but I believe, when we passed the supplemental appropriations bill in which we authorized the surge to go forward, in which we appropriated funds for the surge, in which we established the requirement for the benchmark, for which we got the study last week and then the next one coming in September, to me we made an institutional pledge in that to General Petraeus and the troops. Because in that bill we required General Petraeus, along with our Ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, to come back in September and report to us. We wanted to give them, at the request of General Petraeus, time from the middle of June, when the surge troops would have arrived, to September to see whether he could make it work and report back to us. I don't think there is a person in this Chamber, no matter what our position on Iraq, that doesn't trust General Petraeus to tell us the truth, what he believes, when he comes back in September. I think we made an institutional pledge to him. But I know this: I made a personal pledge to him. I am going to give him and the troops a fair chance, which this amendment would deprive him of, and I am going to give him until September to come back and tell me how it is going. All of us would like to believe, I certainly would, that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq. All of us, I certainly would, would like to go back and do over a lot of what happened after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. All of us want our brave men and women in uniform to come home safely and as soon as possible. All of us are keenly aware of the frustration and fatigue the American people are feeling about this war. But we, who have been honored by our constituents to be elected to serve in the Senate, have a responsibility to lead, not to follow. We have a responsibility--it is the oath we took when we were sworn in--to do what we believe is right for our country, even if it is unpopular. I speak for myself, but I firmly believe what is right is that we cannot allow our Nation to be defeated in Iraq by the same Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11, with whom we are engaged now in a worldwide war that stretches from Baghdad to London, from Madrid to Riyadh, from Bali to Jerusalem, and from Fort Dix to JFK Airport. The sponsors of this resolution insist what is happening in Iraq is a civil war, and they want us to not be part of it. But this argument flies in the face of the statements of al-Qaida's own top leaders who have repeatedly told us they consider Iraq to be, today, the central battlefield of their world war against us. We didn't start this world war, they did, by attacking us. I wish to take a moment to read some comments, direct quotes, from leaders of al-Qaida that make this clear. I am not making it up. I am not quoting somebody in the administration. December 2004. Osama bin Laden. I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation. Listen and understand. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World war. It is raging in the lands of the two rivers--Iraq. The world's millstone and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate. July 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri, second to bin Laden, as we know, in al- Qaida. A letter to Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, the head of Iraq, subsequently killed by coalition forces. Quote from Zawahiri to Zarqawi: I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting a battle in the heart of the Islamic world, what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era. Zawahiri, in that same letter: The Mujahadeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq. No, the first stage is to expel the Americans from Iraq; the second stage is to establish an Islamic authority, or emirate, over as much of the territory as you can, to spread its power in Iraq. And then there is a third stage Zawahiri says. The third stage is to extend the jihad to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. This is not me. This is not some administration spokesperson, this is Zawahiri, No. 2 in al-Qaida. December of 2006, Zawahiri says: The backing of the jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq today is to back the most important battlefields in which the crusade against Islam is in progress, and the defeat of the crusaders will have a far-reaching effect on the future of the Muslim Umah. I could go on. I will read one final one. May 2007, 2 months ago, and this is Zawahiri again in a tape. The critical importance of the jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes clear, because the defeat of the crusaders there soon, Allah permitted, lead to the setting up of two mujahedin emirates, which will be launch pads for the liberation of the Islamic lands and the establishment of the caliphate. That is why I call on the Muslim Umah not to lag behind or tarry in supporting jihad in general and jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, in view of the pivotal importance of these two arenas. I started this because I said that some of my colleagues offering this amendment say we are in a civil war in Iraq and we ought not to be there. There is sectarian violence. That is why we have the counterinsurgency plan, which is to try to stop the sectarian violence, and it is working so far. Surely we don't know whether it will work finally, but sectarian violence has been significantly reduced in Baghdad and now Anbar and Diyala Provinces. But the argument that this is simply a civil war is totally rejected, denied by these statements of al-Qaida's own leaders. We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq. You can't withdraw from Iraq and fight al-Qaida. That is whom we are fighting. Who is going to win if we pull out? Al-Qaida will and Iran will. Listen to what Zawahiri and bin Laden said they are going to do: They are going to establish the capital of the caliphate, the empire, and they are going to go out into the neighboring countries. Incidentally, the notion that somehow we are not fighting al-Qaida in Iraq and that this is just a civil war also flies in the face of the National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaida that was released today, which describes al-Qaida in Iraq as the most visible and capable affiliate of al-Qaida worldwide. Of note, and I quote in full: We assess that al-Qaeda will probably seek to leverage the context and capabilities of al-Qaeda in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate, and the only one that is beyond bin Laden and Zawahiri, the only local affiliate known to have expressed a desire to attack the American homeland. So I know people laugh or jest when people say if we don't defeat them there we will be fighting them here, but this is what the National Intelligence Estimate says. We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq, the only local affiliate of al-Qaida that has also talked about, and some have reason to believe may be acting upon, their desire to attack America here in our homeland. That is the National Intelligence Estimate. It seems to me that it is perverse that on the same day we receive this National Intelligence Estimate about the threat posed by al-Qaida and about its direct linkage to Iraq, Zawahiri to Zarqawi, bin Laden talking about the centrality of what is happening in Iraq, that the Senate would consider voting for an amendment mandating our retreat in the face of al-Qaida from Iraq. I ask, why is this amendment before us? One of the most commonly heard explanations for the amendment mandating the beginning of a withdrawal of American troops in 120 days, and most of them out by next April, is that an American military retreat is necessary--and I quote here one of the sponsors of the amendment--``to prod the Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement.'' So we are going to force a retreat, probably threaten the viability of the Iraqi Government, yield the country to al-Qaida and Iranian- backed terrorists, and we are doing it to send a message to the Iraqi political leadership that they better get their act together. But the argument that our forcing a retreat of our military, our troops, will prod the Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement is pure speculation. It is amateur psychology without any evidence that I can see to support it. In fact, the expert evidence goes in the other direction. From people who follow what is happening in Iraq closely, who say that as soon--and maybe some of this is psychology, too, but to me it seems more sensible than the other argument--as soon as we begin to set a deadline date, the Iraqi political leadership is not going to suddenly come together and settle their differences, they are going to hunker down in camps and get ready for the battle of all battles, which will be a total civil war, huge ethnic slaughter I fear, probably a kind of genocide. One of our military leaders in Iraq when I was there 5 weeks ago said to me: Senator, if your colleagues don't like what they see in Darfur today, and they should not like it, they are going to hate what they see in Iraq if the American military pulls out before the Iraqis can maintain security. Here, too, we have a National Intelligence Estimate that directly rejects the contention that we need to force a retreat of our troops, open the country to a takeover by al-Qaida in Iraq, to convince the Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement. There was a recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. In it, the conclusion was presented that the rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops required by this amendment would, ``almost certainly have adverse effects on national reconciliation'' in Iraq. So rather than promoting political progress, this amendment would have the exact opposite effect than its sponsors intend, and actually undermine it. I know that cots have been brought in tonight to allow Senators to sleep during parts of the night when they are not required on the floor. I think, really, what I hope this does is wake up the Senators and wake up the American people to the threat we face; to wake them up to what our intelligence agencies are saying about Iraq, to what the stakes for us are in Iraq, for what the consequences are for us of a defeat in Iraq, for the strength of the Petraeus counteroffensive surge and how much it is achieving. It is time for all of us to wake up to what is actually happening in Iraq before it is too late. It is time to stop dreaming that a mandated withdrawal, or whatever you call it--a redeployment is really nothing other than a mandated defeat. I suppose if you don't think that defeat in Iraq will have consequences for our future security, then I can understand that. But I, of course, profoundly disagree. We face vicious enemies in Iraq today. We know who they are. They are al-Qaida and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Al-Qaida is fighting in Iraq because they want to bring down the Iraqi Government and they want to stop any progress toward self-government until a modern Iraq. They want the state to fail so they can establish what bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi said clearly, a caliphate, an empire with the capital of the empire there. What about Iran? Iran is training, funding, and arming terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq. This Senate spoke unanimously against that, presenting evidence of it last week, 97 to 0. Why does Iran do that? It wants America out of Iraq so it can dominate that country and the region. These are enemies that cannot be negotiated with or reasoned out of existence. I am all for diplomacy with Iran. I am glad our ambassador met with their ambassador in Baghdad in May, but ultimately negotiations that have gone on with Iran, conducted by the European Governments for more than 2 years to try to convince them to stop the development of nuclear weapons, produced nothing but giving them 2 more years to go ahead with that development. These are not enemies who are interested in the political reconciliation of which the sponsors of this amendment speak. In other words, al-Qaida and Iran are not fighting in Iraq to encourage or bring about a political reconciliation. These enemies must be confronted and defeated through force of arms. That is precisely what our brave men and women in uniform are doing today under this new counterinsurgency strategy, and they are succeeding. I ask my colleagues in this Chamber finally to listen carefully to the words of a great American soldier, Rick Lynch, commander of the Third Infantry Division now serving in Iraq. His soldiers are, today, leading the fight south of Baghdad. General Lynch reported just this past weekend that his forces were making significant gains in reclaiming areas that just a few weeks ago in Baghdad were terrorist safe havens. These are towns on the outskirts of Baghdad where al-Qaida in Iraq had terrorized the local population into submission and then set up shop, assembling the car bombs that then were used to kill hundreds of innocent people earlier this year. That is the way to try to stop these suicidal maniacs from blowing themselves up and killing a lot of Iraqis and Americans with them--which is their attempt to respond to our counteroffensive surge policy and their attempt to do something else: to influence the American public opinion to get out of Iraq. General Lynch also stated that in his professional military judgment--this is a soldier, not a politician--the current troop surge must be maintained through early next year in order to achieve success. In his words: It's going to take us through the summer and fall to deny the enemy his sanctuaries and then it's going to take us through the first of the year into the spring to consolidate these gains. Incidentally, it may be that those gains will be consolidated by next spring, and we will be able to begin to draw down some of the American forces there. But do we have the confidence to know that today, to mandate that to happen? I hope we are in a position--and I am sure General Petraeus does, and I am sure the President does--to begin to order that kind of beginning of withdrawal because the surge has succeeded, not order a withdrawal as an alternative policy to the surge. I return to General Lynch. He warned that pulling back before the job was completed would ``create an environment where the enemy would come back in and fill the void.'' General Lynch also reported that he was ``amazed at the cooperation his troops were encountering in previously hostile areas.'' In his words: When we go out there the first question the Iraqis ask us is, are you staying? And the second question is, how can we help? In other words, what General Lynch said is what they are worried about is our leaving. And our answer is: We are staying. And when we give that answer they say: How can we help? They want a better future than al-Qaida and Iran controlling their country. General Lynch has given us a clear and compelling explanation in the direct words of a soldier about the nature of this war. In his view, the U.S. military needs the additional troops that are now in theater to prevail, and they are, as we speak, prevailing. In this regard, the choice before this Senate is a direct one. Either General Lynch is badly mistaken about the reality of this war or this amendment is badly mistaken about the reality of this war. They cannot both be right. I go with General Lynch. He is on the ground. He has no motives other than to do what is right for his country. He has every motive to want to protect his troops. But he believes in our cause. We have a choice to make. We can ignore the recommendations of our general in the field and withdraw in defeat. We can rationalize our action with reassuring but falsely hopeful words such as ``redeployment,'' but no matter what we say our enemy will know that America's will has been broken by the barbarity of their blood lust, the very barbarity we declare we are fighting, but from which, if this amendment ever passed, we would actually be running. There is, of course, no guarantee that the path we are on will lead to success. There never is in war. But what General Petraeus is offering is a strong, smart, and practical strategy, informed by his experience and expertise, that carries a reasonable hope of victory from whose jaws this amendment would snatch defeat. This amendment is a surrender to terrorism. It is a victory to al-Qaida and Iran. It is an invitation to a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East, and most directly the United States of America. Iraq is not lost. It can be won, and if it is won we will have secured a better, brighter future for the people of that country, the hope of greater stability and opportunity and peace for the people of the region, and the hope and promise of greater security for the American people. Iraq is not lost. But if we adopt this amendment it will be; so, I fear, will so much of our hope for democracy and stability in the Middle East and for our own safety from terrorism here at home. That is why I will vote against cloture and against the Levin- Reed amendment tomorrow morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will yield to the Senator for the purpose of propounding a unanimous consent request but without yielding the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Michigan. I am prepared to go forward whenever the Chamber would like. I understand the Senator from Massachusetts has a statement as in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement entered into, at this time I call up my amendment No. 2073.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, a short while ago, I called up amendment No. 2073, which would require a report on support provided by the Government of Iran for attacks against coalition forces, American forces, in Iraq. I am going to speak about this now at some length, but let me say at the beginning that I offered this amendment in the hope that it will bring forth a strong, unified statement by the Senate that we have noted the evidence presented by our military of the involvement of the Iranian forces in the training and equipping of Iraqi terrorists, who have then gone back to Iraq and are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers there, and, I would say, thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians as well. So in the midst of the controversy that exists in our country, and as reflected in the Senate over the war in Iraq in general, I am hopeful this amendment will offer an opportunity for us to come together to accept the evidence our military has given us of Iran's involvement in the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and together to stand and say to the Iranians that this must stop. Here is the evidence. We know what you are doing. This must stop. Then, in an operational clause of the resolution, to ask, finally, within 30 days after enactment of the act and every 60 days thereafter, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq shall jointly submit to Congress a report describing and assessing in detail external support or direction provided to anticoalition forces by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran or its agents. There are some other points in that which I will get to in a minute. Whether you are pro-war in Iraq or antiwar in Iraq, whether you think we ought to mandate a withdrawal of some or all of our troops or you disagree with that, it seems to me every Member of this Chamber ought to come together around the evidence that our military has provided of what the Iranians are doing to kill our soldiers and to tell them we know it and we want them to stop it. Yesterday I came to the floor to speak at the beginning of the debate about what I thought was involved. I quoted our colleague and friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, who made a very thoughtful speech with which I agree in large part, disagree with in small part. I cited with appreciation Senator Lugar's statement in his remarks. Again, obviously, we all know Senator Lugar is a skeptic when it comes to the strategy we are following in Iraq or the course that it has taken or the concern about the political timetable here in Washington. We are not talking about that, but to acknowledge for the record that I know Senator Lugar is skeptical about where we are now. Nevertheless, he had a very strong statement in that speech he made here on the Senate floor with which I agree totally in which he outlined the national security interests of the United States in how the war in Iraq ends. One of them was to prevent Iran from dominating parts of Iraq. Another was to preserve our credibility in the region, in the Middle East, the credibility that has been so important in attempting over decades, now, to maintain some minimal level of stability in the Middle East--clearly a region of the world that is important to us in many ways. In the most direct way, unfortunately, because of our failure to adopt an independent energy policy, we continue to depend too much on oil and gas that comes from the Middle East so we have an interest in keeping it stable. Obviously we have tremendous spiritual ties to the Middle East as well as more broadly political and economic ties. I mention this because Senator Lugar did talk about Iran and the importance of maintaining American credibility in the region. To me, nothing illustrates the stakes here and the larger conflict we are dealing with in the Middle East more clearly than the deadly and destabilizing role that is being played today by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its agents in Iraq. The fact is that for months and months now, our military commanders and diplomats have been telling us about a proxy war the Iranians have been waging against our soldiers, other coalition forces, and our allies in Iraq. GEN David Petraeus, the commander of multinational forces, and others, have spoken bluntly and publicly and I would say repeatedly about how the Iranian Quds Force, an elite unit of the Iranian Guard Force, has been training, arming, funding, equipping, and directing the extremists in Iraq, terrorists who then go back into Iraq and attack our troops. This past February, senior military officials of ours in Baghdad described forensic evidence that implicated Iran at that time in the deaths of at least 170 American servicemembers, and one may assume that the number has gone up significantly since then. That is 170 American servicemembers killed as a result of the involvement of Iran through Iraqi terrorist allies in Iraq; lost lives of Americans as a result of what Iran and its proxies are doing. Last week, the United States military spokesman for the Multi- National Force Iraq, BG Kevin Bergner, presented new and I think stunning details about Iran's complicity in deadly attacks against our servicemembers. I present this resolution to say to our military, at the beginning: We hear you, but also say to the Iranians: We see what you are doing and we are simply not going to accept it. The fact is, the previous warnings that have been given, and disclosures given by our military about Iranian involvement in Iraq, in some sense have drifted up into the media air which is so cluttered with so much else from the Middle East, from Iraq--so much controversy that it seems to not have settled into the collective consciousness of Members of Congress, let alone the American people, about what Iran is doing to our soldiers, our sons and daughters, our husbands and wives, our friends, our neighbors. It is time for the Senate to say to Iran: We know what you are doing. It is time for you to stop it. Last Monday, according to General Bergner--he made the statement last Monday--he said Iran has been using its territory--this is more specific than has ever been said publicly by the American military before--Iran has been using its territory to train and organize Iraqi terrorists who then go back and kill Americans in Iraq. General Bergner said groups of up to 60 Iraqi militants at a time have been taken to three training camps near Tehran--again, more specific information than ever has come out before publicly--three training camps operated by the Quds Force near Tehran, where these extremists from Iraq have received instruction in the use of mortars, rockets, improvised explosive devices, bombs used by suicide bombers, or those set off in sophisticated ways from a distance, and other deadly tools of warfare that they then use against our troops in Iraq. Iran is also, General Bergner pointed out--and this I thought was stunning and should not be allowed to fade after a day's news cycle away--Iran is using the Lebanese Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah as a surrogate to help build up its terrorist allies in Iraq. That is what General Bergner, our general, our spokesperson in Baghdad, said. So they are bringing their Hezbollah terrorist clients from Lebanon, which is threatening and fighting the established Seniora Government in Beirut, which is our ally, a moderate government, an ally of ours--the Iranians are bringing Hezbollah from Lebanon to Iraq and Iran, to train Iraqis to kill Americans and Iraqis. We know this in part, General Bergner made clear, because our forces have captured one of the Hezbollah leaders, Ali Moussa Dakdouk, inside Iraq. He was captured, a Lebanese Hezbollah Islamist terrorist leader captured inside Iraq. Documents were recovered attendant to that, that detailed the relationship between the Iranian regime and the extremist groups that they are sponsoring in Iraq. So said BG Kevin Bergner, spokesperson for our forces in Iraq. General Bergner also reported last Monday that the U.S. military has concluded that the senior leadership--that is a quote, ``the senior leadership''--in Iran is aware of the activities of the Quds Force in sponsoring attacks against our soldiers in Iraq and that, in his words, it is ``hard to imagine'' that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, does not know of them. These are very serious statements, very serious charges by a respected and authoritative spokesperson for the U.S. military. Those who follow the complicated inner world of Iranian Government know, to the best of our ability to follow it, that this elite military/terrorist group, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, and the Quds Force that is part of it--their leadership is selected and reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not to President Ahmadinejad. So there is plenty of basis in the evidence that we have, in the involvement of the Quds Force and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which we know reports to the Supreme Leader of Iran, that the Supreme Leader of Iran knows what they are doing and presumably has approved it. If he didn't know what they were doing, he certainly does now because the American military has been telling the world. They are probably wondering whether anybody has been listening, for months and months now, that this is exactly what Iran has been doing. It goes without saying, but I want to say it, that no one in this Chamber is looking for a fight with Iran. But that does nothing to alter the fact that Iran has, through its proxies, initiated a fight against us. That is a reality we no longer have the luxury of ignoring. It is a reality we must confront in the defense of the men and women who wear the uniform, the proud uniform of the United States of America in battle in Iraq today. Iran's actions in Iraq fit squarely within a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Middle East over all the years, more than a quarter of a century now, since 1979 when the revolution occurred in Iran, when the American Embassy was seized, when the hostages were held in an outrageous act for more than a year. We know the Iranian Government has used radical Islamist groups throughout the years since then as its regional proxies. We know these proxies have been dispatched to attack and murder American soldiers and citizens in the past. What am I speaking of? I am speaking of the Marine Corps barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983, 24 years ago, which killed 241, I believe, American marines. All the evidence that was gathered after that to me makes a compelling case that that attack was carried out by Hezbollah, which is sponsored, supported, equipped, trained, directed by Iran. Then there was the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia in 1996, where American military and other personnel lived. Again, American blood on the hands of Iran from all the evidence that I have seen about the cause of that attack, the perpetrators being agents of the Iranian Government. We know these proxies who have worked aggressively and consistently on behalf of the extremist regime in Tehran to undermine moderate governments in the region, to extend Iranian influence. It is happening now in a way that seems to me to be more concerted, more aggressive than ever before. You can pick your reason for it. You can say the Supreme Leader Khamenei, President Ahmadi-Nejad, fanatics, anti- Americans shouting, urging their followers by the thousands to shout: Death to America. Death to America. They have been doing that since 1979, continue to do it. You can't take it as a meaningless chant. We have to take extremists at their word because we have seen too often in our history, most recently with all that Osama bin Laden was telling us he would do to us in the 1990s, that in fact he did it, most tragically on 9/11. But some would say that this move throughout the region by Iran is to take the mind of the unhappy Iranian majority off the failure of the Ahmadi-Nejad Government to help make the economy go. Others would say that this is the moment when the Iranians think that American and other powers who have kept the balance and stability in the region will not respond to their aggression. Whatever. We have to open our eyes and see what is happening in the Middle East today. In addition to sponsoring attacks on Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, Tehran is also training, funding, and equipping radical terrorist groups that are working to destabilize Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a fascinating example because there they are now, by all the evidence our military has, the U.S. military, Iran is now supporting the Taliban, which historically has been its enemy. The Taliban now, according to what our military tells us, appears to be receiving Iranian weapons in their ongoing war against the Government of President Hamid Karzai, our ally, the hope for a new Afghanistan, and the American and NATO forces there. In fact, in one sense, it makes perfect sense that Iran is using Hezbollah to aid extremists in Iraq. The fact is, each of the seemingly separate conflicts I have described in the Middle East has a connection. They are part of a larger regional war that we are involved in, but so are so many of our allies in the region. Israel, obviously; but also broadly in the Arab world. If you have been to the Middle East, as I have recently, within a month, you find the level of anxiety--beyond concern, anxiety--in the Arab world among our allies about the movements and intentions of Iran is palpable. The fear, of course, is that Iran is moving to establish itself as the dominant power in the region and to establish its own brand of Islamist extremism as the dominant ideology-theology in the region. In some sense, this is an undeclared war, but it is nonetheless very real. This is a fight the Iranians want to wage in the shadows, I suppose so they can escape some responsibility for blood on their hands. But it is also evident, as the American military and Governments of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Palestinian Authority have themselves made clear. In debating this bill, which is the Department of Defense authorization bill, our first and foremost responsibility--in fact, it expresses itself so many ways in the language of this bill, which was unanimously reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I am honored to be a member--our first and foremost responsibility is to protect our national security and to protect our troops who are protecting our national security. If we do not respond to the evidence that has been presented to us about the acts of the Iranian Government and their agents, I fear--I conclude--we will have failed on both counts. Our troops are being attacked and killed by the agents of Iran. The very least that we in this Chamber can do is to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Government in Iran that we know what you are doing and we insist that you stop. That is why I am offering this amendment today to the Defense Authorization Act. I hope my colleagues will see it as a commonsense, common-ground amendment that confronts the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the evidence of its attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. The amendment details the evidence already in the public record that has been put forward over the past year by General Petraeus and other senior U.S. officials about Iran's involvement in violence and destabilizing activities in Iraq. I repeat what I said at the outset. Whether you are for or against the war in Iraq, whether you are for or against an amendment mandating a deadline or a timeline for withdrawing our troops, I hope we all can find common ground in making this statement, that we see the evidence of Iran's complicity in the deaths of American soldiers and we insist they stop. This amendment is not a call for war against Iran. I--as do all the Members of this Chamber, I am sure--always favor diplomacy first. But this is a call to defend our troops and our vital interests which are under attack by Iran. It is a call for all of us to wake up to the outrageous actions that are being undertaken by the extremist Government in Tehran. It is important that we no longer deceive ourselves. If Iran can get away with the murder of American soldiers and pay no price, it will do it again and again and again. We cannot allow Iran to have a license to wantonly and deliberately murder our troops. For if we sit silently by while this is happening, they will continue to take actions that are hostile to us, and the chances of us achieving what I think everybody in this Chamber would want us to achieve, which is to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons, will simply be impossible. The choice we face with Iran is not a choice between war and peace, it is at this moment a choice between turning a blind eye to the murder of our troops and confronting those who are murdering them. It is a choice between sending a message of determination and deterrence, which hopefully will end this action by the Iranians and sending a message of weakness and appeasement. Just as our men and women in uniform are serving in Iraq to protect and defend all of us, they respond to what their Nation asks them to do, so too do we in this Chamber have a responsibility that I know we all acknowledge. It comes out of this Department of Defense authorization bill loudly and clearly. We accept our responsibility to do everything in our power to defend the men and women in uniform who serve us. Support our troops I know is not just a bumper sticker, it is a solemn pledge of this Government, and everyone who serves it, including those of us who are privileged to serve in the Senate. I hope this resolution can form the foundation for a larger, longer conversation that we in Congress need to have about the struggle we are in with Iran regionally, the threat its Government possesses to the security not just of our soldiers whom I have talked about but to our allies in that region whom I have talked about, and, ultimately, I fear to our country, the United States of America, and the way our policy must take account of that reality. The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away, it must be confronted. This amendment gives the Senate the opportunity to do that. So let us then with one voice tell the fanatical, anti-American leaders of the Government in Tehran, who I believe do not represent the majority of the Iranian people, that they cannot attack our troops without consequence. Let us with one voice tell our brave soldiers in Iraq, that Iran's assault on them will not go unnoticed or unanswered by this Senate. The regime in Iran, I fear, is betting that our political disunity about Iraq will constrain us in responding to its attacks. I do not believe that. For the sake of our Nation's security, for the sake of our soldiers, we must--and I am confident will--prove them wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to my friend from Michigan, to thank him for his general expression of support for the amendment I offer and also for some of the suggestions he has made to me. Our staffs are working now. Again, I wish this to be a clear statement, but I wish it to be a unified statement. I believe that, together, we can achieve that result. So I thank him. I will continue to work on it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for his strong, clear, convincing, compelling statement to me. I am honored he has signed on as a cosponsor of this amendment I have offered, which is specifically related to the Iranian support, training, equipping of terrorists that go back into Iraq, are responsible for the death of Americans and Iraqis. He stated the evidence very clearly. It is powerful evidence. This is an opportunity, as he said, no matter where you are on whether we ought to have a mandatory deadline or a goal or whatever about our policy in Iraq, to stand together and say, when American soldiers are being killed as the result of a concerted campaign by another government, acting through its agents, and our military--not some distant third party--but our military and our intelligence community are telling us that, clearly we are going to stand together here in the Senate and send a united message to Tehran: We know what you are doing. Stop it. I thank the Senator from Arizona and Senator Kyl, who spoke before. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Sessions of Alabama as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I say to the Senator, through you, Mr. President, the modification is ready.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, through you, responding to my friend from Illinois, the direct and short answer is no, it does not. In fact, in the modification I will soon send to the desk, we have added a section that says explicitly what was intended implicitly, which is, ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.'' I say to my friend from Illinois, my hope here--in the midst of a contentious debate in which there is division in the Senate--is that no matter where one stands on the issues we are debating, on the facts that the U.S. military has presented about the complicity of Iran and its agents in training and equipping terrorists who are then coming in and killing Americans and Iraqis, there is agreement. And there is agreement also on the ``therefores'' or the ``resolved,'' which is, these are intolerable and unacceptable acts, and we call on the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to take immediate action to stop them. Significantly--to me, anyway--we set up an operational procedure where, in the first 30 days and then every 60 days thereafter, General Petraeus or his successor, the Ambassador to Iraq and successor, will report to us on any new evidence about the activities of Iran in Iraq. But because I want very much for this to be a statement that as many of the Members here--hopefully, all--could support, I do want to make it clear because I understand this is not meant as an authorization of the use of force or in any other way to speak to the use of force against Iran.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if I might, at this time I would like to send to the desk a series of modifications to this amendment that are the result of negotiations, particularly with my friend from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin. I have been told we are still working on it. I thought we had agreement. OK. So I will say we continue to work on these modifications, which the ones I have seen we have approved together. Does the Senator from Michigan have late-breaking news?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Excellent. Essentially, these are corrections to clarify what the intention of myself and the sponsors, such as Senator McCain, were in submitting this. There were some helpful suggestions made, for instance, from the Intelligence Committee that wanted the reports done by the commander of the Multi-National Force and our Ambassador to Iraq to be done in cooperation with the Director of National Intelligence. We have added a specific recitation of the fact that on May 28 of this year, Ambassador Crocker met in Baghdad with representatives of the Government of Iran to express concern about Iranian anticoalition activity in Iraq. We call on the Director of National Intelligence to issue the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that has been promised for some time now without further delay. We indicate that we support diplomacy with the representatives of the Government of Iran in order to stop any actions by the Iranian Government or its agents against U.S. servicemembers in Iraq. Again, we hope they will respond to these diplomatic initiatives. And then, finally, the section I referred to in my colloquy with Senator Durbin, that this is not intended to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--actually, I don't have to ask unanimous consent; it is automatically modified.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Michigan. I appreciate the fact we will vote in 10 minutes. I think we have an opportunity to do something both very important and together, both of which are important. It is Senators collectively blowing the whistle on the Iranians and telling them we know what they are doing and that we know it is resulting in the death of American soldiers in Iraq, and they better stop it. It is as simple as that. They can read into that whatever else they want. But so far as they may believe in Tehran that they can take advantage of what they view as political differences in the United States or partisan differences, I think this does give us the opportunity, across party lines and every other potential divider, including our position on the war in Iraq, to say: When we have evidence a foreign nation is contributing to the death of American soldiers, we are going to stand together against that. So I appreciate very much the work we have done. I am honored that Senator McCain is a cosponsor. I am honored again that Senator Levin has become a cosponsor. I think we have the opportunity now to do something very united and important. I thank the Chair, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe I have been yielded 15 minutes of the next half hour.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the pending business before the Senate, which is the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2008. This is a bill the Senate Armed Services Committee has worked long and hard on over a period of several months. I am privileged to be a member of the committee and now doubly privileged to be chair of the Airland Subcommittee. I am proud of the work of the committee. This is a bill that does the best we possibly can to support and expand our forces during a time of war. Unfortunately, most of the time that will be spent by this Chamber on this bill will not be about the solid substance of the Department of Defense authorization bill but will be on a series of amendments that will be offered to alter our course or force our withdrawal from Iraq. In my considered opinion, respectfully, this is a mistake. These amendments regarding Iraq, I believe, are untimely, they are unwise, and they are unfair. They are untimely in the sense that they are premature and should await September, when, as ordained by this Congress itself in the supplemental appropriations bill, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will come back to report to us fully. They are unwise, if ever adopted, because they would essentially represent a retreat from Iraq, a defeat for the United States and the forces of a new Iraq, a free Iraq, and a tremendous victory for Iran and al-Qaida, who are our two most significant enemies in the world today. Offering these amendments at this time, in my opinion, is unfair: unfair, most of all, to the 160,000 Americans in uniform over there-- men and women, brave, effective, in my opinion, the new greatest generation of American soldiers, committed to this fight, believing we can win it, putting their lives on the line every day. They have made tremendous progress already in the so-called surge, counteroffensive. To snipe at them from here is, in my opinion, unfair. That is why I will oppose all the amendments I have heard about thus far and why I wish to discuss them today. I suppose, in terms of timeliness, if one felt the surge, counteroffensive--which began in February, and has just been fully staffed a couple of weeks ago--had absolutely failed, then one might say: OK, we won't wait until September, as we promised we would do; we will try to force a change in policy or a retreat right now. But the facts, as I will discuss, will show the surge is showing some success-- in some ways some remarkable success--and does not justify these amendments of retreat being offered at this time. Six months ago, this Chamber voted unanimously to confirm GEN David Petraeus as commander of our forces in Iraq. The fact is--which we all acknowledge--before that, the administration had followed a strategy in Iraq that simply was not working. It was a strategy focused on keeping the U.S. force presence as small as possible, regardless of conditions on the ground, and of pushing Iraqi forces into the lead as quickly as possible, regardless of their capabilities to do so. General Petraeus oversaw--let me step back. General Petraeus was part of a process, along with others, that presented a dramatically different strategy to the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief. He accepted that dramatically different strategy, which was to apply classic principles of counterinsurgency that have been successful elsewhere, so that instead of our main goal being to get out of Iraq, our main goal became to protect the civilian population that the terrorists were persistently attacking, bringing chaos throughout the country, including particularly in the capital city of Baghdad, and making it impossible for a new Iraqi Government to take shape. As a result, over the past 5 months, many problems, many crises, many challenges in Iraq that had long been described as hopelessly beyond solution have begun to improve. In Baghdad, the sectarian violence that had paralyzed the city for more than a year began to drop dramatically. In Anbar Province, which the chief of Marine Corps intelligence in Iraq described 9 months ago as ``lost''--and he was right at that point--a city which I was not allowed to visit when I went to Iraq in December because it was too dangerous--our surge forces have moved in effectively. Working together with Sunni tribal leaders and their Sunni followers, we have al-Qaida on the run. As a matter of fact, they have effectively run from Anbar Province, the province they said they intended to make the capital of the new Islamist extremist Republic of Iraq. When I was in Iraq a month ago, I was not only allowed to visit Ramadi and walk its streets but was tremendously impressed by the peace and rebirth that is occurring there. As John Burns of the New York Times recently put it, the capital city of Anbar, Ramadi, has since ``gone from being the most dangerous place in Iraq . . . to being one of the least dangerous places.'' Despite these gains in Baghdad and Anbar, critics of the new strategy nonetheless insisted that it was not working, pointing to the fact that, yes, al-Qaida is on the run, but it is running and causing devastation in other parts of Iraq--now in Diyala Province, for instance. But what happened? General Petraeus, now with the other generals and additional personnel brought under his command by the surge counteroffensive strategy, was able to leave some troops in Anbar, fortified by Iraqi security forces and the Sunni tribal forces, and move the surge forces to Diyala, to Bakuba there, where they now have al-Qaida on the run. Our forces in the field are, of course, still facing some daunting challenges and a brutal, inhumane foe prepared to blow themselves up to make a point, to kill others, hating us and others more than they love their own lives. But the plain truth is that Iraq in this month, July 2007, is a very different and better place than Iraq in January or February of 2000, and it is because of the so-called surge counteroffensive strategy. Those who refuse to recognize that change and nonetheless go forward with the same policies of defeat and withdrawal that they have been talking about for months have, I would say respectfully, closed their eyes, not to mention their heads, to the reality of what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq. General Petraeus has persistently appealed to us to have some patience, to not rush to judgment about the success or failure of a new surge strategy. It is only right that we do so. But instead of respecting those pleas, withholding our judgment, and remaining true to what we ourselves put into the supplemental appropriations bill, which was a requirement for an interim report this week and a full report on paper about the benchmarks and in person by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in September, instead of waiting for that to happen, I regret that some of my colleagues have decided to go ahead and submit these amendments which, to me, represent the continuation of a longtime legislative trench warfare against our presence in Iraq no matter what the facts on the ground there are. Rather than giving General Petraeus and his troops a fair chance to succeed--and it is not just for them, it is for us--I regret that efforts will be made here to undermine our strategy, which is now a successful strategy in Iraq, to dictate when, where, and against whom our soldiers can fight and when we should get out. I suppose this would be justified if somebody concluded that the war was lost in Iraq. The war is not lost in Iraq. In fact, now American and Iraqi security forces are winning. The enemy is on the run in Iraq. But here in Congress, in Washington, we seem to be--or some Members seem to be on the run--chased, I fear, by public-opinion polls. I know the American people are frustrated. I understand that. I know what they see every night on the TV, the suicide bombs. I know how much they want their loved ones to come home. No one wants that more than we do here. But the consequences of doing that would be a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East, and for us because the victors would be Iran and al-Qaida, our two most dangerous enemies in the world today, and trust me, they would follow us back here to this country. I said one might pursue a policy of changing course, directing a retreat, a withdrawal, accepting defeat if one thought the war was lost. The war is not lost. In fact, I will say to my colleagues today that this war in Iraq will never be lost by our military on the ground in Iraq. The war in Iraq can only be lost with the loss of political will here at home and, perhaps, with the loss of political will in Iraq. But that story is not finished yet. Perhaps there are some who would say the war is not lost but it is not worth winning. I think we have to think of the consequences of defeat. I know that in the midst of the consequences of defeat are a victory for Iran and al-Qaida, chaos in Iraq, slaughter that will probably begin to look like genocide, instability in the region, and the danger that we will be forced to send our troops back into the region in greater numbers to fight a more difficult war. I think the amendments on Iraq to be offered on this Department of Defense bill are mistaken. What are the alternatives my colleagues are going to propose in these amendments? One of the amendments would demand a total withdrawal of American troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. Its sponsors argue that we can continue to fight al-Qaida in Iraq and defend our other key interests in the Middle East by operating from bases elsewhere there. With all due respect, this is fantasy. As my friend, Senator Lugar, pointed out a short while ago, a complete American withdrawal from Iraq is likely to have devastating consequences for American national security. Everyone knows Senator Lugar is a skeptic about our strategy and events in Iraq. Yet, in his words, a complete withdrawal from Iraq would: Compound the risks of a wider regional conflict. It would be a severe blow to U.S. credibility that would make nations in the region far less likely to cooperate with us. It would expose Iraqis who have worked with us to retribution, and it would also be a signal that the United States was abandoning efforts to prevent Iraqi territory from being used as a terrorist base. So spoke the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar. Another amendment would keep some forces in Iraq, pull most forces out by next April 1. Their numbers would be dramatically reduced and the mission dramatically redefined. Some argue that American soldiers should withdraw from Iraq's cities and instead focus on the training of Iraqi forces, targeting counterterrorism, and protecting the remaining American troops there. Let me say that is a vision I would embrace for the future but not as a substitute for the surge counteroffensive strategy we are following now but as a consequence of a successful implementation of that strategy, for if we in this Chamber and in Congress mandate the withdrawal of our troops down to a core group with a new mission before the Iraqi security forces are ready to provide security, we are going back to the exact strategy some describe as the Rumsfeld strategy which didn't work, which was roundly condemned by most people in both parties over a period of years. I repeat my confidence that the number of American troops will be reduced, but it will be reduced best when it is reduced as a result of the successful implementation of the surge strategy as carried out heroically by American forces. I conclude with these words: Our responsibilities in this Chamber ultimately do not allow us to be guided by our frustrations or even by public-opinion polls when we respectfully believe those public-opinion polls do not reflect what is best for our Nation. We were elected to lead. We were elected to see beyond the next election, to do what is best for the next generation of Americans. We were elected to defend our beloved country, its security, and its values. All of that is on the line in Iraq today. So I appeal to my colleagues, let's not undercut our troops and legislate a defeat in Iraq where none is occurring now, where hope is strong, where the momentum is, in fact, on our side. If you question that, at least show the fairness and respect for General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, and all the people working for us there to wait until September, which is what we said we would do, until we take a serious look at these amendments. If we go down the path the amendments entice us toward, what awaits us is an emboldened Iran, a strengthened al-Qaida, a failed Iraq that will become not just a killing field but will destabilize the entire Middle East and also, I fear, imperil our security here at home. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 1572, the DRIVE Electric amendment. Senator Salazar is the sponsor. Senators Bayh, Brownback, Coleman, Klobuchar, Smith, Clinton, Alexander, Biden, and I are cosponsors. I know I speak for my fellow DRIVE Act cosponsors when I thank the members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, led by Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici, for reporting versions of DRIVE Act provisions out of that committee in May. And I know my fellow DRIVE Act cosponsors are as gratified as I am that Chairman Bingaman and 62 other Senators voted Tuesday to adopt the DRIVE Act's original oil savings requirement as part of this Energy bill. During the debate preceding Tuesday's vote, Senator Domenici said that Congress should not abdicate its responsibility to spell out the policies that the Federal Government will use to achieve the oil savings targets that now are part of this Energy bill. I could not agree more. That is why my DRIVE Act cosponsors are back here today to boost the Energy bill's transportation electrification provisions up to their original DRIVE Act strength. Once restored to its original strength, the DRIVE Act's electrification program will give the Federal Government a vital tool that will take this Nation a considerable distance toward the oil savings targets that the Senate adopted on Tuesday. Currently, our transportation sector runs on oil. That is the problem the Senate is trying to solve with this Energy bill. We are passing a law in order to move our transportation sector off of oil, in part by moving it onto alternative fuels. In expanding the use of various alternative fuels, we should not overlook our own existing electrical grid. Most electricity generation in this country is fueled by domestically mined coal. A substantial amount of electricity generation in this country is fueled by uranium mined in the United States or Canada. While only a small amount of electricity is generated in the U.S. using renewable sources such as solar and geothermal energy, we know we can increase that amount substantially. Only 2 percent of the electricity generated in this country is generated using oil. So the more that we use electricity to power our cars, trucks, trains, and ships, the more we will be using domestic energy sources, and the less dependent we will be on oil. Fortunately, the technology is now available to allow us to plug in our cars at night, when existing powerplants are underused and electricity is especially cheap, so that during the day, the cars run largely on battery power. And the technology is now available to allow trucks to plug in at truck stops-- and ships to plug in at ports--so that they don't use oil to run their on-board systems when they're stationary. The founder of a U.S. company called A123 testified before my global warming subcommittee in May about durable, safe, light-weight, high- capacity batteries his company has developed for vehicle use. He is using that technology to convert hybrid vehicles into plug-in hybrids today. He drives such a car every day. It gets 150 miles to the gallon. The electricity that it takes to drive the vehicle 40 miles costs about one-tenth as much as it costs to drive the same distance on gasoline. I understand that General Motors believes it can start selling such plug-in hybrid vehicles to American consumers within the next 2 years. At the same hearing in May, the head of global research at General Electric testified that the company had already developed a hybrid electric locomotive. Even if you count the pollution from the powerplants--including coal- fired powerplants--used to charge a plug-in hybrid or fully electric vehicle, or to run an idling truck or ship, powering these vehicles with electricity releases far, far less pollution into the environment than powering them with oil does. The underlying bill contains some language to help accelerate the deployment of these electrification technologies in the transportation sector. The DRIVE Electric amendment would strengthen those provisions substantially. There is broad, bipartisan support here in the Senate for strengthening them. There is no reason not to strengthen them. Here is what the DRIVE Electric amendment would do: The DRIVE Electric amendment would expand the Advanced Transportation Technology Program in section 245 of H.R. 6 and augment the Energy Storage Competitiveness Program in section 244 of H.R. 6. More specifically, the DRIVE Electric amendment would expand the near-term vehicle technology deployment program in the underlying bill by adding a revolving loan program. This will maximize the effectiveness of the program in stimulating the installation of technologies to reduce petroleum use and cut emissions. In addition, the amendment sets forth types of projects--including port, truck stop and airport electrification--that will qualify for the program. The amendment includes a program to remove barriers for existing and new applications of electric drive and hybrid transportation technologies. It would establish an electricity usage program to increase the understanding of and management of the electricity grid as a source of power for the transportation sector. The amendment would also direct the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency to develop information on the grid-side of electric drive technology. It would authorize grants for electric utilities to promote customer programs for load management and off-peak use. While the underlying bill would allow for basic and applied energy storage research, the DRIVE Electric amendment would establish an electric drive transportation research and development program. That program would address additional research needs, including: high efficiency on-board and off-board charging components; high power and energy-efficient drive-train systems for passenger and commercial vehicles and for nonroad vehicles; control system development and power-train development and integration; application of nano-materials technology, and use of smart vehicle and grid interconnection devices and software. The amendment also would direct the Energy Department to evaluate the benefits of plug-in electric drive technology, by creating testing programs to assess the full potential of benefits in terms of reducing criteria air pollutant emissions, energy use, and petroleum consumption. The amendment also would establish a nationwide education program for electric drive transportation technology, including financial assistance to create new university-level degree programs for needed engineers, supporting student plug-in hybrid electric vehicle competitions, and other educational efforts. Finally, the amendment would update the fleet acquisition program established under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to assure that fleet operators subject to that law can choose electric drive transportation technologies, including hybrid electric vehicles, for compliance. I believe this amendment is exactly the kind of commonsense, win-win, bipartisan measure that the American people like to see coming out of Congress. I respectfully ask that my colleagues support the DRIVE Electric amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to call to the attention of my colleagues that the week of June 3 to 10 was Dystonia Awareness Week. The Dystonia Advocacy Coalition, through the commemoration of this week and a number of other outreach activities, sought to raise awareness of dystonia, a neurological disorder. Dystonia is a movement disorder that causes the muscles to contract and spasm involuntarily. There is presently no cure, and although remarkable progress has been made in unraveling the causes and mechanisms of dystonia, the availability of effective treatments is limited. Approximately 50 percent of patients with dystonia have a genetically inherited form while the other half suffers from dystonia as a result of birth injury, physical trauma, exposure to certain medications, surgery, or stroke. Estimates suggest dystonia affects at least 300,000 people in North America. Given the prevalence and limited treatment options for this disorder, I call on my colleagues to increase support for the National Institutes of Health, which funds dystonia research through the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, NINDS, the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, NIDCD, and the National Eye Institute, NEI. I have consistently supported increases in NIH funding in the past and recently signed onto a letter asking for a 6.7 percent increase in NIH funding for the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill. The lack of treatment options and a cure for serious conditions like dystonia underscores the overall need to support basic science and translational research that allows for the transfer of discoveries from the laboratory bench to actual medical treatments. I am continuing to develop legislation to enhance our Federal translational research efforts. I believe we can and must bring new treatments for diseases such as dystonia to the public faster than ever.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the energy legislation that will be the topic of the Senate this week. It is critically important. I congratulate the cochairs of the Energy Committee, particularly Senators Bingaman and Domenici, for the work they have done, along with other committees, including Commerce and the Environment Committee on which I am privileged to serve. We are dealing with a critical national crisis. In some ways, if we can adopt bipartisan, strong energy security legislation, we will have dealt with the most serious challenge facing our country. Because in dealing with our dependence on foreign sources of oil and reducing that dependence, we can make our economy more secure, protect American consumers from the painful price spikes in the cost of gasoline and home heating oil and other fuels they have become accustomed to, and that not only drain individual budgets but hurt our national economic growth potential and reality. Second, we will make our Nation more secure. Because no matter how strong we are militarily or even economically, if we end up depending so much on foreign sources of oil, our independence can be compromised. We cannot tolerate that. Here is the reality. Ninety-seven percent of transportation in the United States is fueled by oil we buy from a unified global oil market. Saudi Arabia holds 20 percent of the world's oil reserves. Iran has 10 percent, led by a man who today repeatedly says to crowds in Iran, imagine a world without America; 10 percent of the world's oil reserves are in Iran. Venezuela, led by a virulently anti-American president, holds 6 percent of the world's oil reserves; Russia has 4.5 percent; Libya, 3 percent; the United States today has 1.5 percent of the world's oil reserves. We cannot leave our national and economic security dependent, therefore, on a resource that lies largely in the hands of others, including other nations that are either volatile or undemocratic or aligned against the United States. H.R. 6, which combines the work of three or four different committees, contains many significant provisions that would reduce our Nation's oil consumption. I truly commend the heads of these committees, the chairmen and ranking members, for bringing this legislation forward. This may be the only opportunity we have in the 110th Congress, certainly the only opportunity we will have in this first year of the 110th session, to confront our energy dependence and deal with it. Therefore, it is very important that we work hard to make this bill as strong as we possibly can and, of course, as bipartisan. Our constituents, our Nation just watched the Senate unfortunately grind itself into gridlock over the comprehensive immigration bill. Let's not turn that show into a double feature with stalemate over energy security legislation as well, certainly not as prices soar and American consumers sour. I want to speak briefly in favor of a bipartisan consensus amendment I and others will introduce as part of this debate. I am speaking on behalf of a bipartisan and geographically diverse group of Senators led by Senators Bayh, Brownback, Salazar, Coleman, and many others. We will offer an amendment to replace the gasoline savings goal of H.R. 6, the underlying legislation, with title I of our so-called DRIVE Act. DRIVE, in the strange world of acronyms, stands for Dependence Reduction Through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy. This is the successor to an earlier version--which title didn't make a good acronym, but which title I loved--which was the Set America Free Act, because right now we are not free. We are dependent on others for our energy. The DRIVE Act's title I, which we will introduce as an amendment, would direct the executive branch of Government to identify within 9 months and to publish within 18 months Federal requirements that will achieve a 2.5 million barrel-per-day reduction in U.S. oil consumption by 2016, a 7 million barrel-per-day reduction by 2026, and a 10 million barrel-per- day reduction by 2031. That is about 50 percent of the per-day oil consumption of the United States today. This amendment would also direct the Office of Management and Budget to publish an analysis identifying the oil savings projected to be achieved by each requirement to be created and demonstrating that the listed measures will, in the aggregate, achieve the overall specified oil savings. Finally, the measure includes specific requirements for the executive branch to evaluate, review, and update the action plan so we can achieve these critical national goals. The targets for savings in H.R. 6 are expressed in terms of American gasoline consumption. The amendment would express them in terms of what we think is a more relevant standard which is overall oil consumption, because reducing gasoline use can be achieved by increasing the use of diesel which, of course, is also made from oil. So oil consumption reduction is, in our opinion, the more appropriate goal for this law, and that is why we are going to introduce this as an amendment to H.R. 6. The gasoline savings goal in H.R. 6 amounts to about a 20-percent reduction in projected oil consumption by 2030, 23 years from now. The oil savings requirement in our amendment amounts to a 35-percent reduction in projected oil consumption in 2030. That is a significant increase in reduction and one we can achieve, if we set the goal as high as it should be, high enough to cut our dependence on foreign oil and free America from that dependence. I believe there is broad bipartisan support in the Senate for these stronger targets. Indeed, the fuel economy and renewable fuels provisions already found elsewhere in H.R. 6 will themselves go a long way toward achieving the stronger targets. The DRIVE amendment's cosponsors believe that we need targets that will keep the pressure on the Executive branch to use the authorities Congress has provided to achieve robust oil savings. The DRIVE Act has 26 cosponsors, including 6 Republicans. Thus, the language of our DRIVE amendment is bipartisan and consensus-based. I hope my colleagues will adopt it overwhelmingly. I would like to explain my opposition to an amendment that I understand will be offered, an amendment that--while intricately drafted--has the sole purpose of opening the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Most of my colleagues have been through enough Senate debates over this issue to know that it is highly controversial and deeply divisive. I believe that if an Arctic drilling amendment were added to this bill, it would prevent Senate passage of otherwise bipartisan legislation that could reshape--but not despoil--our energy landscape. I myself filibustered the last bill to which an Arctic drilling provision was attached. Let me just repeat a fact that I stated at the beginning of my remarks: The United States holds just 1.5 percent of the world's oil reserves. Oil is a global commodity--like wheat or corn, gold or copper--that essentially has a single world benchmark price. That means we could drain every last drop of oil from U.S. territory, despoiling our last stretches of wilderness in the process, and U.S. production still would amount to no more than a trickle in the stream of global supply. We would do irrevocable damage to our natural heritage without having an appreciable effect on the price that Americans pay for oil, and without reducing our crippling oil addiction by one iota. It is time we face up to the fact that we cannot drill our way out of this problem. The only effective and permanent solution to high gas prices--the only effective and permanent solution to energy dependence--is to dramatically reduce our oil consumption. H.R. 6 takes an impressive step in that direction. The DRIVE amendment would lengthen that step to a stride. But adding an Arctic drilling provision would kill the entire enterprise, leaving us in the same, unacceptable situation we find ourselves in now. So I respectfully ask that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on the DRIVE amendment, and ``no'' on any measure that would open the treasured Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The American people are energized on this issue. Let's not let them look to the Senate and think they have hit a dry well of gridlock. Mr. President, I note the presence of one of my colleagues on the floor who I know wants to speak during this half hour of morning business, so I will say, very briefly, we have an opportunity to do something right for the American people, if we can work across party lines--and none of this should be partisan--to get this done. Again I note in that regard, with some regret, some of my colleagues have indicated an intention to once again introduce an amendment that would open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil and drilling. Obviously, they have a right to do so. This has been debated often in the Senate. My only word of caution is I fear such an amendment, if it is attached to this bill, may doom the overall bill; therefore, we would all lose as a result of it. I say to my colleagues, we have a fresh opportunity here, a kind of fresh start. This institution is in need of a bipartisan agreement that solves some real problems, such as the cost of gasoline and home heating oil and other fuels the American people are facing. So it is not just that the institution would benefit in its credibility with a bipartisan agreement on this critical issue; the country needs us to show leadership on this issue. I am confident, as we begin this debate, we can rise to the opportunity. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.