John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am very appreciative of the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina. His eloquence is both compelling and informative. I thank my friend from Connecticut for his amendment. Mr. President, there has been printed in the Record an article by Senator Lieberman of Friday July 6, 2007, that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. I hope many of my colleagues will find the time to read this piece by Senator Lieberman. My friends from South Carolina and from Connecticut have made the arguments on behalf of the present strategy. One of the aspects of this debate we are in will center to some degree around Iranian influence in Iraq and the need for, or not, face-to-face talks with Iran. Let me make it clear in the beginning that I think America should be ready to talk to anybody at any time under any circumstances as long as somehow it isn't injurious to America's prestige or cause. But I think those who would come to this floor and argue about the need for face-to-face talks with the Iranians and how somehow that is the Rosetta Stone or nirvana--something that all we need to do is sit down and talk face to face with the Iranians--should be aware of the recent experience we have had with the Iranians. There were talks between Washington and Tehran last month in Baghdad, and the subject was security issues. Many of us were aware of those. I quote the chief military spokesman, BG Kevin Bergner: There absolutely is evidence of Iranian operatives holding weapons, training fighters, providing resources, helping plan operations, resourcing secret cells that is destabilizing Iraq. We would like very much to see some action on their part to reduce the level of effort and help contribute to Iraq's security. We have not seen it yet. Obviously, we know that tensions between the United States and Iran are very high, especially after the United States seized five Iranians earlier this year in northern Iraq for which there was clear and compelling evidence they were helping the insurgents. We also know Iran has five U.S. Iranian citizens held on ``security-related charges,'' a gross violation of human rights. I am surprised there is not more outrage in the United States over this basic kidnapping of American citizens. The important part of this discussion is that our Ambassador to Iraq, Mr. Ryan Crocker, met with his Iranian counterpart last month in Baghdad. I know I share the view of most people who have had interface with Ambassador Crocker that he is one of the finest who has ever served in the Foreign Service as a diplomat and representative of the United States in all parts of the Middle East. One of the issues Ambassador Crocker raised was the type of roadside bomb which cuts through armor and is most lethal that is being supplied by the Iranians. Tehran's response last week was that they would study a request from Baghdad for a second meeting but warned the decision may take weeks. Our No. 2 U.S. diplomat, Daniel Speckhard, said: We do not yet have another meeting scheduled for that dialogue with Iraq and Iran. He said the first meeting produced general assurances that Tehran had a common interest in seeing a stable Iraq on its border, but these words had not been matched by deeds. In other words, we have had a meeting with the Iranians. We have had various representations and representatives approach the Iranians on this issue. We have tried very hard and we will continue to try very hard to convince the Iranians that chaos in Iraq is not in their interest. I am not talking about U.S. interest but their interest. But it seems, as Daniel Speckhard said, what we have seen during the first meeting is, from our perspective, a sense that their actions were out of line with their stated goals and objectives. Relations between the two countries obviously are being strained by Iran's nuclear program, which, in the minds of most experts, is by no means peaceful. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, and this will be part of one of the amendments that is proposed, the United States should engage in face-to-face talks with the Iranians. That is fine. As I say, it is fine with me as long as it doesn't undermine U.S. prestige and enhance the prestige of a nation that continues to say things such as: Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury. Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations. Israel is a tyrannical regime that one day will be destroyed. We are supposed to sit down in face-to-face negotiations with a government whose President said, concerning the Holocaust: They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless. That is the rhetoric of the Government of Iran. I hope we can convince them that an al-Qaida-significant presence in Iraq and increased chaos in the region is not in Iran's long-term interests because we need them. We need them to join with us in trying to bring about some kind of stability in the region. I hope that will happen. I note the presence of the deputy Democratic leader on the floor. As I have discussed with the Senator from Michigan, the distinguished chairman, we are prepared to vote at whatever the leader's convenience is. It is my understanding--if I could have the attention of the Senator from Michigan--that after that, according to our conversation--

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself just 4 minutes and then save some of the remaining time. Mr. President, this amendment calls for a congressionally mandated fence that would surround every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine and every military unit in the Armed Forces. If their days at home don't equal the days deployed, these soldiers, by law, could not be deployed in support of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is quite a restriction. I have done some research recently, since I heard about this amendment, and it is certainly without precedent in wartime, and we are in wars, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than get into the debate about the length of the war in Iraq again, I think most people appreciate the fact that the war or the conflict in Afghanistan will be with us for a long time. I mention that because I have yet to see a congressional proposal to end our engagement in Afghanistan where we were successful in ousting the Taliban, but, obviously, there are more challenges we have to meet in the future. In the Defense authorization bill, we have provisions to increase the size of the Marine Corps and the Army, which I hope will alleviate some of the enormous strain that has been placed on our Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty Forces. I understand the deep concern of the Senator from Virginia about this issue. Our Guard and Reserve are being stressed in a way that is unprecedented, probably since World War II, when everybody was called to serve, just about, and I certainly understand the concerns raised here. I share them with Guard members and members of the Reserve all the time. We have called people back to active duty in an almost unprecedented fashion, so I understand the intent of this amendment. But if we put such a requirement into law in wartime, I think it would be bad congressional micromanagement. It would be a precedent that no President could live with and an expression of distrust in military leaders, particularly of the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, who promptly established dwell-time policies on assuming office and is doing his utmost to enforce them. Senator Webb has expressed his belief that this amendment would do no harm. Well, those whom we charge with the responsibilities--both the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff--have indicated that if enacted, the amendment would have immediate adverse effects on their ability to accomplish their military missions. The Joint Staff told us this amendment would ``eliminate the flexibility of the services to manage and mitigate exceptions to dwell time planning goals'' and that ``future support to IAF/OEF may be severely impacted.'' The Joint Staff went on to say, ``The requirements will result in future capability gaps in combat and combat support forces both in IAF and OEF units.'' For reservists, the requirement will ``exacerbate the stress on the current force, providing sourcing challenges and creating shortfalls.'' The Department of Defense stated, ``In emergency situations, where forces are needed quickly, the waiver process could affect the war fight itself by delaying forces needed in theater.'' And they went on to say, ``The proposed language stipulates minimum periods between deployments in both units and individuals. The requirement to meet both criteria for units and individuals before deployment could severely limit options for sourcing rotations.'' That is the view of the people we entrust with the responsibilities to defend our Nation, and I do not diminish the responsibility of the Congress as well. This amendment could--and according to military planners, would--do harm. And it shouldn't be a surprise. So the amendment has a Presidential waiver provision, which I am sure will be emphasized in the course of this discussion, but it doesn't make the amendment better. Attempts at using it would only lead to endless delays and bickering about whether deployment ``meets an operational emergency posing a vital threat to national security interests.'' Those kinds of decisions should clearly be made by the President of the United States. That is what the Constitution says when it outlines specifically that the President of the United States shall serve as Commander in Chief. Now, the Congress, as they have in the past, has the power of the purse, and if we don't like what the President--the Commander in Chief--is doing, then we can cut off those appropriations. Sometimes we have done that, much to our dismay in afterthought. For example, I referred earlier--yesterday--to a decision to cut off any military assistance or any kind of assistance to Cambodia, and we watched helplessly as 3 million people were slaughtered in a genocide of proportions almost unmatched in the 20th century. I say ``almost.'' So I believe this kind of decision should be made by the Commander in Chief. I wish to assure my colleague from Virginia that I will work with him in every way to get this legislation passed, which increases the size of our Marine Corps and Army, and we should continue, just as quickly as we can, to recruit these brave individuals and to maintain the standards we think are important in order to have this highly qualified All-Volunteer Force. I would also again point out that there are men and women who want to go back to Iraq. There are men and women who want to serve again in Afghanistan. There are men and women who feel a sense of urgency and a desire to serve. Would the amendment of the Senator from Virginia preclude them from additional service? I don't know. So I hope we can continue to work together on this issue, and I hope we can turn down this amendment, even though I certainly agree with the sentiments and the concern of the Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Well then, Mr. President, I will go ahead. I understand there is 20 minutes equally divided; is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. The amendment puts Iran on notice that we in the Congress are aware of actions taken by Tehran that have resulted in the deaths of U.S. service personnel. We are aware of it, and we must do everything we can to stop it as quickly as possible. While my colleagues and I may have legitimate differences over our policy in Iraq, we stand firmly united against those individuals and regimes that would seek to harm our troops. For some time now, American diplomats and military officers have suspected that key Iranian Government elements are actively engaged in supporting individuals and groups seeking to destabilize the Iraqi Government and who are deliberately targeting American troops for attack. There is a body of evidence, a body of reporting on Iranian material support to Shia militias, reports that suggest that Iranian support for the most lethal of the improvised explosive devices and for armor-piercing explosively formed projectiles. Together, these weapons account for a high percentage of American casualties in Iraq. But the evidence of Iranian activity in Iraq does not end there. In order to increase its influence in Iraq, bleed the United States and disrupt our efforts in Iraq, Iran has engaged in numerous specific acts. A few of the publicly available reports include: In February of this year, our military confirmed that at least 170 members of the U.S. Armed Forces have been killed and at least 620 wounded by weapons tied to Iran. On May 27, then-MG William Caldwell, spokesperson for the Multi- National Force in Iraq, said: What we do know is that the Iranian intelligence services, the Qods Force, is in fact training, equipping, and funding Shia groups . . . both in Iraq and in Iran. . . . We have in detention now, people that we have captured that, in fact, are Sunni extremist-related that have, in fact, received both some funding and training from the Iranian intelligence services, the Qods Force. On April 26, General Petraeus stated that the Qazali network, a network directly connected to the Iranian Quds Force, was responsible for the sophisticated attack against the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Iraq, which resulted in the murder of five American soldiers, four of whom were first abducted. Last week Brigadier General Bergner, current spokesman for Multi- National Force Iraq, stated the following: The Iranian Quds Force is using Lebanese Hezbollah essentially as a proxy, as a surrogate in Iraq. Coalition forces have captured Ali Musa Daqdaq, whom the U.S. believes to be a 24-year veteran of Lebanese Hezbollah involved in the training of Iraqi extremists in Iraq and Iran. The Iranian Quds Force operates three camps near Tehran where it trains Iraqi extremists in cooperation with Lebanese Hezbollah. 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 EFPs, mortars, rockets, as well as intelligence, sniper, and kidnapping operations. Iraqi extremists receive between $750,000 and $3 million every month from Iranian sources. . . . our intelligence reveals that senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity and that it would be hard to imagine that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, is unaware of it. Let me be clear. This amendment is not a call for war. However, it is a clear message that America stands by our troops and our interests in Iraq and that all Americans are united against those who would do them harm. I ask my colleagues to join us in sending this message. If the Government of Iran wishes to prevent further international isolation and increased tension with the United States, it must take immediate action to end all training, arming, equipping, funding, advising, and any other forms of support for those who are destabilizing Iraq and killing American troops. That is about as simple as it gets. I would hope that however divided we may be on other questions of policy, we can all agree on that. As my friend from Connecticut says, this amendment is a quite commonsense, common-ground proposal that would send a clear message on behalf of America, our interests, and those who risk everything to protect it. I remind my colleagues of several quotes made by various Iranian leaders, including the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who said: Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day be destroyed. He said on another occasion: Israel is a rotten dry tree that will be annihilated in one storm. Another time he said: The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. Israel must be wiped off the map. Those are not the words of the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Michigan, any one of our enemies, but the elected leader of the State of Iran, who has said on numerous occasions that Israel must be wiped off the map. So it is not just what the Iranian Government is doing in Iraq, it is the continued threat to the State of Israel. The Iranians, along with the Syrians, continue to arm Hezbollah. They are in the process of replacing the rockets expended in the battle in southern Lebanon as a result of the attack of Hezbollah on Israeli forces, the capture of Israeli servicemen. It is clear that the United Nation's Security Council resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is not in any way, sense, or form being enforced. In fact, Hezbollah is being rearmed rather than disarmed. There is no doubt that the Iranian Government is attempting to realize an age-old dream of Persian influence and superiority in the Middle East. This is a real and serious threat. I haven't even talked about the nuclear weapons development. It is well known to most of my colleagues here--all of them, as a matter of fact. As they continue to progress down the path to acquisition of a nuclear weapon, I am not concerned--I am concerned, but I am not as concerned about the fact that Iran develops a nuclear weapon and puts it on a missile aimed at Israel. I am far more concerned about the Iranians acquiring a nuclear weapon and handing it over to one of the terrorist organizations with which they have intimate and close ties. This is a great threat in the region. Even if we are out of Iraq, let's suppose the worst-case scenario happens. I think one of the greatest threats to stability in the region is the insertion of Iran in a broad variety of ways in Iraq, beginning with southern Iraq, and their support of continued organizations that practice terror in the region. I also think that obviously you would have some kind of Sunni involvement sponsored by the Saudis and you would have a number of other catastrophic situations, including the Turks not being able to withstand an independent Kurdish state. All of those are subjects for a debate for another day and discussion. But the threat Iran presents, not just to Iraq, not just to the region, but peace in the world, is real. It is extremely urgent that we address it. If we fail to do so, as we have failed to address threats of terrorism in various shapes and forms in the past, we will pay a very heavy price. That is why I am very pleased to support the amendment of my friend from Connecticut. Before I yield, could I also say I think that the Senator from Michigan and I and the Senator from Connecticut would be glad to enter into a time for a vote on this amendment at his convenience and that of the leadership's convenience.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just reserving the right to object to clarify one more time, we intend to debate and vote on Graham and Hagel side by side. Then I would offer an amendment that would be considered. Following that, I think, is when the Senator from Michigan, along with I think 99 others, would be offering the wounded warriors amendment on behalf of our veterans.

Mr. McCAIN. That is my understanding.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in deference to the age and seniority of the Senator from Massachusetts, I am more than happy to agree that after Senator Lieberman proposes his amendment, the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized and then we return to debate on the Lieberman amendment, if that is agreeable to my friend from Michigan. If so, I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, perhaps the Senator from Connecticut could have his amendment pending, and then the Senator from Massachusetts could speak in morning business. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, for planning purposes--and I know he is traditionally and characteristically brief-- I wonder how long he might be.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes. I think it would be decided case by case and probably not by me.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the remaining time. Very briefly, I have made my comments about this amendment. America has been engaged in other wars at other times, and we have not put time limitations on the periods that they would be in rotation. I think it is clearly executive branch decisionmaking, which is clearly pointed out in the Constitution. I just want to add, while my friend from Michigan is on the floor of the Senate, we are probably not going to get cloture on this amendment. Then it will be a decision of the majority leader as to whether we go forward. If there is another amendment that will be brought up, I fully expect to have the same right that has been extended to the minority over the 20 years that I have been here as a Member of Congress; that is, that I be allowed to propose an amendment from our side. I have managed many bills on the Senate floor. I have never prevented--I have never prevented--an amendment from being proposed. I hope the Senator from Michigan will extend me that same courtesy. By the way, we now are finding significant criticism about our insistence on the 60 votes in side by sides, something that was a standard procedure when the other side was in the minority. So history clearly indicates that is the way we have been doing business. Whether it is correct or not, and whether it causes gridlock is another subject. But to criticize this side because we are insisting on the same parliamentary procedures as were insisted upon by the other side when they were in the minority, it seems to me, is a bit inconsistent. I hope I would be able to, if the Webb amendment is disposed of, propose an amendment from my side as has been the custom all of the years that I have been here; otherwise, I think we may spend some time in a parliamentary situation. I am not ready to give up that right of the minority. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. McCAIN. We retain the balance of time, Mr. President. I withhold at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, however the Senator from Michigan wants to handle it--I have 12 minutes remaining. I wish to yield to the Senator from South Carolina for 5 minutes, the Senator from Georgia for 5 minutes, and I will take the remaining 2 minutes. If the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Virginia wants to intervene between those two, that will be fine. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina and, following whatever remarks on the other side, the Senator from Georgia for 5 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we will 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. Iran will comfortably step into the power vacuum left by a U.S. withdrawal, and such an aggrandizement of fundamentalist power has great potential to spark greater Sunni-Shia conflict across the region. Leaving prematurely would induce Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Egypt and Israel, Turkey and others, to feel their own security eroding and may well induce them to act in ways that prompt wider instability. The potential for genocide, wider war, spiralling oil prices, and the perception of strategic American defeat is real. 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 the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war. General Petraeus and his commanders believe they have a strategy that can, over time, lead to success in Iraq. General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come to Washington in September to report on the status of their efforts and those of the Iraqis. They ask two things of us: the time necessary to see whether their efforts can succeed and the political courage to support them in their work. I believe we should give them both. I know that Senators are tired of this war, tired of the mounting death toll, tired of the many mistakes we have made in this war and the great effort it requires to reverse them, tired of the war's politicization and the degree to which it has become embroiled in partisan struggles and election strategies. I understand this fatigue. Yet I maintain that we, as elected leaders with a duty to our people and the security of their Nation, cannot let fatigue dictate our policies. The soldiers I met last week have no illusions about the sacrifices necessary to achieve their mission. On July 4, I had the great privilege to be present as 588 troops reenlisted in the military and another 161 were naturalized as U.S. citizens. Tragically, two of those who were scheduled to be naturalized as U.S. citizens were killed very shortly before the ceremony. Those men and women taking the oaths of enlistment and citizenship in the center of Saddam's al Faw Palace, they understand the many hardships made in our name. They have completed tour after tour away from their families, risking everything, everything for the security of this country. They do so because they understand the circumstances that, however great the costs of this war, the costs are immeasurably greater still if we abandon it prematurely. All they ask is that we support them in their noble mission. I wish we had planned to fight this war correctly the first time. But we can no more turn back the clock to 2003 than we can wish away the consequences of defeat by imposing some artificial deadline for withdrawal. Last week in Iraq, I met the bravest men and women our country has to offer, and not one of them told me it was time to go or that the cause is lost. They are frustrated with the Iraqi Government's lack of progress. They are buffeted by the winds of partisanship in Washington, talking today of surges and tomorrow of withdrawal, voting to confirm General Petraeus and then voting for a course that guarantees defeat. But in the end, they know the war in Iraq is part of a larger struggle, a war of moderation and stability against the forces of violence and extremism. They recognize that if we simply pack up and leave, the war does not end--it merely gets harder. Finally, I would like to give a couple of quotes. General Lynch, who is the third ID commander of the U.S. forces, says: Pulling out before the mission was accomplished would be a mess. We find the enemy regaining ground, reestablishing sanctuaries, building more IEDs and the violence would escalate. GEN Anthony Zinni, one of my particular heroes, who opposed the war in Iraq, said: . . . that we cannot simply pull out of Iraq, as much as we may want to. The consequences of a destabilized and chaotic Iraq, sitting in the center of a critical region of the world, could have catastrophic implications. . . .There is no short-term solution. It will take years to stabilize Iraq. How many? I believe at least five to seven. In the Baker Hamilton report, there is a lot of selective quoting. But I would like to point out that they said: Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe in the role and the commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitous withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al-Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. That is page 30 of the Iraq Study Group report. Finally, I understand, I believe very well, how difficult this issue is for many of our Members. I know the sorrow and the frustration that they and their constituents feel. If I knew a great option as to how we could preserve our Nation's security and withdraw and stop the unfortunate casualties that are incurred by these brave young people, I would embrace it tomorrow. Part of this debate is going to be proposals that people have made about how we can best leave. I intend to engage in vigorous discussion and debate. I would like to again begin this debate by pointing out I respect the views of my colleagues on this issue. I understand their frustration. I intend to be respectful of their views, and I hope we can have a debate and discussion on this issue, as we consider various amendments, that will better inform the American people of both points of view. I hope over time somehow we can find a way to come together in this body and in this Nation because this war has divided this Nation in the most terrible way. I saw it once before. I saw it once before, a long time ago, and I saw a defeated military, and I saw how long it took a military that was defeated to recover. I saw a divided nation beset by assassinations and riots and a breakdown in a civil society. That is why we need, in my view, to try to come together--and I do not know how we do that-- beginning with respecting each other's views so we can come together and hopefully end the tragedy of Iraq and at the same time ensure America's security. I will be saying a lot more on this issue as we continue the debate. I say again, I respect the views of my colleagues. Then, finally, I again pay my compliments to the distinguished chairman of the committee, who put together, as is his wont, a bipartisan package that will ensure our Nation's security in the future, as exemplified again by a unanimous vote of the committee in reporting out the Defense authorization bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I would like to thank my old friend from Hawaii for his patience so that, as the Republican ranking member of the committee, I may make a statement about the bill itself and about the situation in Iraq. I thank him for his courtesy, and I will try not to take too long a period of time. So I thank my old friend from Hawaii. Mr. President, we have reached another moment of importance this week in debating the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill. We will help set the course of the Nation's security policy and influence our participation in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of the debate, as we all know, will be about Iraq, and before I discuss that and my recent visit, I would note that many provisions in this bill constitute a good defense policy and will strengthen the ability of our country to defend itself. Under the leadership of my good friend from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, I think we have crafted an excellent piece of legislation. I think a testament to his leadership is that the committee voted unanimously to report the bill, and it fully funds the President's $648 billion defense budget request. It provides necessary measures to try to bring under control waste, fraud, and abuse in defense procurement, and, frankly, it makes Members more accountable for their spending in the earmark process. Again, I thank Senator Levin, the subcommittee chairs, and all the committee members for their work in bringing this issue to the floor. Very briefly, we have authorized a 3.5-percent, across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. We have increased Army and Marine end strength to 525,400 and 189,000, respectively. The committee also approved $2.7 billion for items on the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirement list, including $775 million for reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, $207 million for aviation survivability equipment, $102 million for combat training centers and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment, night vision devices, and machine guns. The bill also authorizes $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, known as MRAP vehicles, for all of the Services' known requirements. The committee has come up with the money to support our troops, and I have no doubt the full Senate will follow step. Money and policy statements are not all that is required at this moment in our national history. Courage is required--courage, not the great courage exhibited by the brave men and women fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a smaller measure: the courage necessary to put our country's interests before every personal or political consideration. In this light, I would like to discuss America's involvement in Iraq, and finally I would like to make several points. Final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus's counterinsurgency tactics arrived just several weeks ago. Last week I had the opportunity to visit with troops in theater. From what I saw and heard while there, I believe our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making progress in a number of areas. There are other areas where they are not. I would like to outline some of their efforts, not to argue that these areas have suddenly become safe--they have not; I want to emphasize the areas have not become safe--but to illustrate the progress our military has achieved under General Petraeus's new strategy. Last year Anbar Province was believed to be lost to al-Qaida. On the map we see that U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaned out al-Qaida fighters from Ramadi and other areas of western Anbar. Tribal sheiks broke with the terrorists and joined the coalition side. It is a fact that some 16 out of the 24 sheiks in the Sunni area of Anbar Province have now joined with U.S. forces in their commitment to destroy al-Qaida in Anbar Province. Ramadi, months ago, was Iraq's most dangerous city. It is now one of its safest. At considerable political risk, I point out that I visited, with Senator Graham, downtown Ramadi where the shopping areas were open. I did not visit without protection or without security forces with me. But the fact is, a short time ago it was one of the most dangerous cities in all of Iraq. Attacks are down from 30 to 35 a day in February to zero on most days now. In Fallujah, Iraqi police have established numerous stations and have divided the city into gated districts. The violence has declined and local intelligence tips have proliferated. Throughout Anbar Province, thousands of young men are signing up for the police and Army, and the locals are taking the fight to al-Qaida. All 18 major tribes in the province are now onboard with the security plan. A year from now, the Iraqi Army and police could have total control of security in Ramadi, allowing American forces to safely draw down. South of Baghdad, operation Phantom Thunder is intended to stop insurgents present in the Baghdad belts from originating attacks in the capital itself. A brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, which I visited, is operating in Baghdad belts that have been havens for al- Qaida. All soldiers in the brigade are living forward. That means they are in outposts away from the headquarters 24-7, living, working, and fighting alongside Iraqi military. Commanders report that the local sheiks are increasingly siding with the coalition against al-Qaida. Southeast of Baghdad, the military is targeting al-Qaida in safe havens they maintain along the Tigris River. In Baghdad itself, the military, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, continues to establish joint security stations and deploy throughout the city. These efforts have produced some positive results. Sectarian violence has fallen. Since January, the total number of car bombings and suicide attacks declined. In May and June, the number of locals coming forward with intelligence tips has risen. Make no mistake, violence in Baghdad remains at unacceptably high levels, suicide bombers and other threats pose formidable challenges, and other difficulties abound. Nevertheless, there appears to be overall movement in the right direction. I have no doubt how difficult suicide bombers are to counter. Ask the Israelis. They literally had to seal their borders with Gaza and the West Bank because of the way people who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to take the lives of others are able to get through and do these horrendous acts that we are exposed to quite often on our television screens and in our newspapers in America. In Diyala Province, Iraqi and American troops have surged and are fighting to deny al-Qaida sanctuary in the city of Baqubah. For the first time since the war began, Americans showed up in force and did not quickly withdraw from the area. In response, locals have formed a new alliance with the coalition to counter al-Qaida. Why are some of these people now turning against al-Qaida? One reason is the extreme cruelty that is practiced by al-Qaida on a routine basis, which has caused many people to reject that kind of extreme violence and cruelty inflicted on the local people. Diyala, which was the center of Abu Mus' Ab al-Zarqawi's caliphate, finally has the chance to turn aside the forces of extremism. I offer these observations not to present a rosy scenario of the challenges we continue to face in Iraq. As last weekend's horrific bombing indicates so graphically, the threats to Iraqi stability have not gone away, nor are they likely to go away in the near future when our brave men and women in Iraq will continue to face great challenges. What I do believe is, while the mission to bring a degree of security to Iraq and to Baghdad and its environs in particular in order to establish the necessary preconditions for political and economic progress--while that mission is still in its early stages, the progress our military has made should encourage us. It is also clear the overall strategy that General Petraeus has put into place, a traditional counterinsurgency tactic that emphasizes protecting a population and which gets our troops off of the bases and into the areas they are trying to protect--that this strategy is the correct one. Some of my colleagues argue that we should return troops to the forward operating bases and confine their activities to training and targeted counterterrorism operations. That is precisely what we did for 3\1/2\ years, and the situation in Iraq got worse. Over 3\1/2\ years we had our troops from operating bases going out--search and destroy as we used to call it during the Vietnam war--and going back to their bases. That was a failed strategy from the beginning. I am surprised that any of my colleagues would advocate a return to the failed Rumsfeld-Casey strategy. No one can be certain whether this new strategy, which remains in the early stages, can bring about greater stability. We can be sure, should the Senate seek to legislate an end to this strategy as it is just beginning, then we will fail for certain. Now that the military effort in Iraq is showing some signs of progress, the space is opening for political progress. Yet rather than seizing the opportunity, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not functioning as it must. I repeat, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not functioning as it must. We see little evidence of reconciliation and little progress toward meeting the benchmarks laid out by the President. The Iraqi Government can function. The question is whether it will. To encourage political progress, I believe we can find wisdom in several suggestions put forward recently by Henry Kissinger. Intensified negotiations by the Iraqi parties could limit violence, promote reconciliation, and put the political system on a more stable footing. We should promote dialog between the Iraqi Government and its Sunni Arab neighbors, specifically Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, in order to build broader international acceptance for the Iraqi central government in exchange for that government meeting specific obligations with respect to the protection and political participation of the Sunni minority. We should begin a broader effort to establish a basis for aid and even peacekeeping efforts by the international community, keyed to political progress in Iraq. Taking such steps, we must recognize that no lasting political settlement can grow out of the U.S. withdrawal. On the contrary, a withdrawal must grow out of a political solution, a solution made possible by the imposition of security by coalition and Iraqi forces. Secretary Kissinger is correct when he says ``precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster,'' one that ``would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia,'' produce greater violence among Iraqi factions, and embolden radical Islamists around the world. The war between Iraqi factions would intensify. The demonstration of American impotence would embolden radical Islamism and further radicalize its disciples from Indonesia and India to the suburbs of European capitals . . . What America and the world need is not unilateral withdrawal but a vision by the Bush administration of a sustainable political end to the conflict. As I said before, withdrawals must grow out of a political solution, not the other way around. The Shias and the Sunnis and the Kurds: They need the buttress of a diplomatic process that could provide international support for carrying out any internal agreements reached or to contain conflict if the internal parties cannot agree and Iraq breaks up . . . The American goal should be an international agreement regarding the international status of Iraq. It would test whether Iraq's neighbors as well as some more distant countries are prepared to translate general concepts into converging policies. It would provide a legal and political framework to resist violations. These are the meaningful benchmarks against which to test American withdrawals. He goes on to point out: Turkey has repeatedly emphasized it would resist a breakup by force because of the radicalizing impact a Kurdish State could have on Turkey's large Kurdish population. But this would bring Turkey into unwanted conflict with the United States and open a Pandora's box of other interventions. Saudi Arabia and Jordan dread Shiite domination of Iraq, especially if the Baghdad regime threatens to become a satellite of Iran. The various Gulf Sheikdoms, the largest of which is Kuwait, find themselves in an even more threatened position. Syria's attitudes are likely to be more ambivalent. Its ties to Iran represent both a claim to status and a looming vulnerability . . . Given a wise and determined American diplomacy, even Iran may be brought to conclude that the risks of continued turmoil outweigh the temptations before it. He goes on to talk about a multilateral framework. A forum for diplomacy already exists in the foreign ministers' conference that met recently at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. . . . It is in the United States' interests to turn the conference into a working enterprise under strong, if discrete, American leadership. He goes on to say: Neither the international system nor American public opinion will accept as a permanent arrangement, an American enclave maintained exclusively by American military power in so volatile a region. I believe Secretary Kissinger is correct. I believe he is correct when he bases the premise that precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that should any of the various amendments forcing withdrawal become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. Our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq but is rather debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's deputy chief, said the United States is merely delaying our ``inevitable'' defeat in Iraq and that: ``The Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps toward victory.'' If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. The movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory. We saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al-Qaida following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe anything is possible, history is on their side, and they can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Mus'ab al- Zarqawi before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: Establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel; none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is, Are we? Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority would turn Iraq into a failed state and a terrorist sanctuary in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once before. It cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with impunity. We know that today there are terrorists in Iraq who are planning attacks against Americans. I do not think we should make this mistake twice. Brent Scowcroft, whom we also know was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in the first place, has said: The costs of staying are visible. The costs of getting out are almost never discussed . . . If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution. One of my great heroes and role models and a person whom I have had the great honor of getting to know recently is Natan Sharansky, a man of inestimable courage and knowledge. He recently had a piece that ran Sunday in the Washington Post. The title of his piece is: ``Leave Iraq, Embrace for a Bigger Bloodbath.'' In his statement, he talks about: The truth is that in totalitarian regimes, there are no human rights. Period. The media do not criticize the government. Parliaments do not check executive power. Courts do not uphold due process. And human rights groups do not file reports. He talks about the moral divide that separates societies in which people are slaves, from societies in which people are free. ``Some human rights groups undermine the very cause they claim to champion,'' he says. Consider one 2005 Amnesty International report on Iraq. It notes that in the lawless climate of the first months after Hussein's overthrow, reports of kidnappings, rapes and killings of women and girls by criminal gangs rose. Iraqi officers at a police station in Baghdad said in June 2003 that the number of reported rapes was ``substantially higher than before the war.'' The implication was that human rights may not really be improving in post-Hussein Iraq. But the organization ignored the possibility that reports of rape at police stations may have increased for the simple reason that under Hussein it was the regime--which includes the police--that was doing the raping. He goes on to say: A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison. I am quoting from Natan Sharansky. Without U.S. troops in place to quell some of the violence, Iranian-backed Shiite militias would dramatically increase their attacks on Sunnis; Sunni militias, backed by the Saudis or others, would retaliate in kind, drawing more and more of Iraq into a vicious cycle of violence. If Iraq descended into full-blown civil war, the chaos could trigger similar clashes throughout the region as Sunni-Shiite tensions spill across Iraq's borders. The death toll and the displacement civilians would climb exponentially. He says: Perhaps the greatest irony of the political debate over Iraq is that many of Bush's critics, who accused his administration of going blindly to war without considering what would happen once Hussein's regime was toppled, now blindly support a policy of withdrawing from Iraq without considering what might follow. In this respect, the debate over Iraq is beginning to look a lot like the debate about the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s. Then, too, the argument in the United States focused primarily on whether U.S. forces should pull out. But many who supported that withdrawal in the name of human rights did not foresee the calamity that followed, which included genocide in Cambodia, tens of thousands slaughtered in Vietnam by the North Vietnamese and the tragedy of hundreds of thousands of ``boat people.'' Mr. Sharansky lives in the neighborhood. Mr. Sharansky understands the meaning of the word ``freedom.'' Mr. Sharansky understands the meaning of the word ``sacrifice.'' Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Kissinger and Sharansky articles.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for that thoughtful question. The fact is, I do read the polls, and if the Senator from California had paid attention to my opening statement, she would have known that I made it very clear that I understand the frustration and sorrow of the American people. I also know a lot of us are not driven by polls. A lot of us are driven by principle, and a lot of us do what we think is right no matter what the polls say. So I appreciate the concern of the Senator from California about whether I read the polls. I appreciate that greatly. But I do know also that when you send a signal, and I appreciate the Senator's concern--I was talking about the liberal left addressing the war in Cambodia, is what I was speaking of. The record is clear, and I will be glad to provide other quotes of a similar nature. But I do also know that those of us who study history, those of us who spend time in Iraq, those of us who spend time with various leaders, such as General Zinni, such as General Scowcroft, such as Secretary of State Baker, such as many others, we all know what the consequences of a date for withdrawal will be. And it isn't my opinion alone. It is shared by a broad variety of national security experts in this field. I also point out that it does have an effect on the troops in the field when they see effort after effort after effort to withdraw, to force them to be withdrawn and, obviously, a failure of their mission. I welcome this debate, as I said earlier. I think it is important to inform the American people. I think it is important to have a respectful exchange of views. And I will continue to respect the views of the Senator from California, but I will tell her that I have seen this movie before, and I have seen what happens when we have a defeated military and we have people who assure us that a withdrawal is without consequences. I believe, as Henry Kissinger as recently as a few days ago said: . . . precipitate withdrawal [from Iraq] would produce a disaster. It would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The war between the Iraqi functions would intensify. The demonstration of American impotence would embolden radical Islamism and further radicalize its disciples from Indonesia and India to the suburbs of European capitals. Natan Sharansky says the same thing. A person who knows about oppression, who knows about freedom, who served as a beacon to me and a hero in my entire life says: A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison. All of these are statements by people for whom I have the greatest respect. I hope we will heed some of their admonitions. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I certainly appreciate the passion of the Senator from California and her concern for the men and women serving in the military and those who have sacrificed a great deal already. The fact is, according to Lee Hamilton and Henry Kissinger, General Zinni, and according to literally almost every--not all-- respected national security expert in this country, it is acknowledged that we will have a lot more casualties. The Senator's concern is emotional and well-founded and very moving. I am also moved by the fact that Henry Kissinger and Lee Hamilton say Congress should drop fixed deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. As Commander in Chief, the President needs flexibility on troop withdrawals. He will accept no bill that has a timeline or a fixed date for withdrawal. Lee Hamilton says: The American people have the war in Iraq figured out. They know American troops cannot settle Iraq's sectarian conflict, and they want to withdraw responsibly. They do not want a messy or sudden withdrawal to prompt wider sectarian strife and an escalating humanitarian disaster. To some degree, I have seen this movie before. I remember when the debate was going on on the floor of the Senate on our withdrawal from Cambodia on December 15, 1970. Mr. Gravel, now one of the candidates for President of the United States, said: We come back to the argument of protecting American forces. It is simple. Take the forces out and we do not have any problem. It is simple. Do not get into Cambodia. Do not get involved. Then we do not get into anything. Yes, there was an argument on the floor of the Senate about withdrawal. There was an argument that prohibited the United States from being involved in Cambodia. Three million people were slaughtered--one of the great acts of genocide in modern history. Yes, we cared about American casualties after Vietnam and we withdrew. The North Vietnamese attacked and millions of people got on boats, thousands were killed in reeducation camps, and thousands were executed. I have seen this movie before. I have seen this movie before from the liberal left in America, who share no responsibility for what happened in Cambodia when we said, no, as I quote Senator Gravel: We come back to the argument of protecting American forces. It is simple. Take the forces out and we do not have any problem. It is simple. Do not get into Cambodia. Do not get involved. Then we do not get into anything.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to finish my comments, and then I will be glad to yield to the Senator from California. Continuing to quote Senator Gravel: What would happen if Cambodia fell tomorrow? It may well fall. . . . Obviously, it would become communistic. We would have some gnashing of teeth, but life would go on. We would have our traffic jams and everything else. There were no traffic jams in Phnom Penh, Madam President, not a one. In fact, all of the people were killed or told to walk out of the city. Life would go on. Basically, that would increase the casualties of Americans in South Vietnam. That would be the difference, except the American people are going to get up and say, ``We do not want Americans getting killed at that rate.'' . . . it means we are going to put more money in, and if there is a danger that Cambodia will be overrun 6 months from now, we would have to escalate to the next higher step, and they will devise some way of getting American troops in there. Or they would go the mercenary route until they butcher enough of those people. Interesting. This, to my mind, is wrong, and adds nothing to our security. Supposing South Vietnam fell, and became totally Communist tomorrow, and then Cambodia fell and became totally Communist; would that appreciably change the life of my colleague from Kansas? Would that change his life? The debate goes on and on. It is very worthwhile reviewing the debate that went on about Cambodia and Vietnam, not to mention, as I mentioned earlier, the impact of losing a war on America, our military, and others. The Senator from California and I am sure the Senator from Delaware will speak very movingly about the strain on the families of the men and women and the strain on our troops. By the way, we do in this authorization bill before us increase the size of the Marine Corps and the Army, and we need to increase it even more because of the challenges around the world--something that some of us have sought to achieve for a long period of time. But the fact is, when you lose a war, the consequences of failure are far, far more severe on the military than the strain that is put on the military when they are fighting. It is a fact. It is a fact of military history. It is a fact of the war that we lost in Vietnam, which took us well over a decade to restore any kind of efficiency in our military. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, might be recognized for such time as he may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. And I would like to thank the Senator from Hawaii for his patience and his courtesy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to seek recognition, but I see the assistant majority leader is up, and I will be glad to wait on him.

Mr. McCAIN. I paid attention to the statement of the Senator from Illinois, as well as that of the Senator from Nevada. We may be approaching--not a historic moment in the history of the Senate but certainly one worthy of note; that is, according to my staff, that is not always accurate but is well meaning, we are about, maybe, at least 26 years since we have not had a Defense authorization bill passed by this body. Clearly from this beginning it appears, as on most other issues that have come before this body recently, we will be gridlocked. Cloture motions will be filed. Votes will be taken. Time passes and, unfortunately, during that period of time, the men and women who are serving in our military will be without their pay increase. They will be without the increase in numbers that are called for in this bill, from 512,000 in the Army to 525,000; from 180,000 in the Marines to 189,000. The best way, probably, to relieve the stress on the men and women in the military and the overdeployment that, unfortunately, we all regret they have had to bear, their unfair share of sacrifice in defense of this Nation and its security, is to increase the size of the military. That is in this bill. Frankly, the reason we arrived at these numbers is it is just about as many as can be recruited additionally; otherwise, I think you would see additional numbers. Instead of the 3.5-percent pay increase, instead of increasing size in the Army and Marine Corps, which we all know is badly needed, some of us, including my friend from Michigan, have known for many years how badly it was needed. One of the many mistakes made by the previous Secretary of Defense was not to call for a dramatic increase in the size of our Marine Corps and Army, for which our military families have paid a very heavy price. Here we are, gridlocked in a battle whether we are going to have 60 votes and whether we are going to have to file a cloture motion which will ripen after a couple of days and all the arcane things that very few Americans understand. It took me a number of years to finally comprehend some of the procedures around here. So we are, again, going to probably maintain that historic low in approval that was recently, in a recent Gallop Poll that has been taken for many years--I have forgotten the number now. I think it was in the teens as the approval rating of the Congress on the part of the American people. Anybody who just watched the proceedings that went on and the exchanges between the two leaders make that disapproval rating far more understandable. The average citizen watching these debates really doesn't understand why we don't just go ahead and take care of the men and women in the military, to give them the arms and ammunition they need, to give them the much needed equipment we have talked about on this list--the $2.7 billion items on the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirements list, things like the $4.1 billion for the MRAP, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. We all know how bad the situation is, as far as IEDs are concerned. What are we going to do? Are we going to sit down and say: Hey, you know what. When the Democrats were in the minority around here they insisted on 60 votes on just about every issue, particularly important ones. We are now insisting on 60 votes, now that we are in the minority. Yet somewhere along the way the issue of c-o-m-i-t-y and the national interest suffers and is abandoned by the wayside of politics. The Senator from Michigan and I will sit here this afternoon and we will have statements made by various Members as they come to the floor. There are, if my past experience with this bill is accurate, probably 100, maybe more, amendments that will be pending because there are so many issues that are important to Members and important to the defense of this Nation. It is very likely, from this scenario I am seeing, that we will for the first time in at least 26 years not pass a Defense authorization bill--certainly not in a timely manner. We are already into the month of July, and, obviously, we will not spend all 4 weeks on this issue. I think in days gone by--and we all have a tendency to remember the good parts and not the bad parts--there was a tendency for the managers of the bill and the majority and whatever party was in the minority leaders would sit down and say: OK, we are going to narrow down the amendments. We are going to have agreement for a certain number of amendments and votes, and it would take us a while. I can remember sometimes it taking 2 weeks. That is why we usually bump it up against a recess because one thing in the 20 years I have been here we have never missed is a recess. Now we are going to sit here for this afternoon. It is Tuesday afternoon, and we are going to have various statements. Members on both sides will display their dedication to the men and women in the military. I appreciate that. I appreciate the patriotism of every single Member of this body. But are we really going to do anything for them? Are we really going to try to help them? Or are we going to be locked in combat on an issue that should not be on this bill? We probably have taken up the issue of the war in Iraq eight or nine times. I don't know exactly how many times. We have amendments, we have debates, we have 60 votes, and then we move on to something else. Meanwhile, we have not done a single appropriations bill, I might add, and we are in the month of July. Everybody knows, even though I don't happen to agree with it, that September will be a seminal time on the Iraq issue. General Petraeus will be coming back, and he will be issuing his report, which, by the way, I can predict what it is going to be right now; mixed, some success and some frustration. Then, guess what, in September, we are going to go through another debate. We are going to have amendments, and we are going to have 60 votes again. Meanwhile, the American people are wondering what in the heck we are all about here, and why in the world, in all due respect to the deputy majority leader, do we have to keep taking up the Iraq issue when we know full well that in September there will be a major debate on this issue? Meanwhile, the men and women in the military who are serving, to whom I see declaration after declaration of our dedication and devotion to their welfare and benefit, then what is going to equip them? What is going to train them? What is going to give them the pay raise? What is going to take care of them is somehow lost in the rhetoric of 60-vote requirements, which again, most Americans do not understand nor should they be required to, because they expect us to come here and act in their benefit. Certainly they should be asking us to act on an issue, on a piece of legislation such as the Defense authorization bill which has to do with the defense of this Nation. Well, I could go on for a long time. I do not want in any way my comments to be construed as a lack of respect and appreciation for the chairman of the committee, and the many years we have worked together, because I am convinced he and I could sit down in a very short period of time and work out the number of amendments and schedule votes and time agreements. But we are not going to do that. We are not going to do that. But please do not come to the floor, I ask my colleagues, and talk about your dedication to the men and women in the military and how difficult it is for them in these times, when we have before us a bill to increase the size of the military, we have before us a bill to give them a pay increase that they deserve, and it probably is not going to be passed by this body, at least before we go out for the August recess. Then we get into September. Then we will get into another fight on the issue of whether we should withdraw troops in Iraq. I don't think we should be very proud of ourselves. I don't. When the men and women in the military whom we again, as I say, all profess our devotion and dedication to, do not get the equipment they need authorized, do not get the increases in pay, do not get the increases in numbers that we are trying to authorize, then do not be too surprised with the cynicism of the American people and voters and, indeed, the men and women who are serving, about the way we do business. I hope the majority leader and the Republican leader can sit down and work this thing out. Look, it is a fact the way the Senate works. It happened when the other side was in the minority, that they required 60 votes on issues of importance. I am sorry they did. I am sorry we did. I wish we could have simple up-or-down votes on all of these amendments. But to claim that somehow we are filibustering, when that was the standard procedure on the other side, I don't think is, frankly, too forceful an argument. As I say, my staff tells me it has been at least 26 years, probably more, since we have not passed a Defense authorization bill. I hope we will not break that record. I hope we can sit down together and work this out. Again, recognizing these votes on Iraq are votes that will be taken again in the month of September, they will be taken again in the month of September when the President comes, when General Petraeus comes with his report, I would hope we could set the whole issue of Iraq aside, go ahead with the authorization for equipping and training and protection and welfare and benefit of the men and women who are serving us in the military. Unfortunately, I think that is not going to happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 800, the so- called Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. Not only is the bill's title deceptive, the enactment of such an ill-conceived legislative measure would be a gross deception to the hard-working Americans who would fall victim to it. Since the inception of our democracy, we as citizens have placed a great amount of pride in our ability to freely cast votes and voice our opinions on how Federal, State, and local business should be conducted. Our ability to voice opinions through secret ballots stands as one of the hallmarks of our democratic process. Certainly, now, perhaps more than ever, we should be working to uphold this hallmark, not tear it down for the convenience of organized labor, which has been struggling with a declining membership. This bill is the product of partisan politics at its worst, and it must be soundly defeated. During the early 20th century, we experienced a rapid growth in our labor force and, as a result, a push by unions to increase their membership. In response to aggressive and questionable recruiting practices by some unions, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, NRLA, of 1947. One of the main tenets of this legislation was to afford hard-working Americans the right to privately cast their vote on whether to organize, free of intimidation and coercion from union representatives and employees. Unfortunately, before us today is a bill that seeks to strip this fundamental right from our Nation's workers. Ironically dubbed the ``Employee Free Choice Act of 2007,'' this legislation would enact a ``card check'' process, allowing unions to bypass the long used and successful secret balloting system. The proposed legislation is a direct attack on one of the most basic tenets of our democratic process, which is why it is opposed by a majority of American workers. A recent poll conducted by the nonpartisan Coalition for a Democratic Workplace found that 90 percent of union households oppose this legislation. Another poll by McLaughlin and Associates indicated that almost 9 out of 10 voters agree that workers should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. My concern is--and it is a concern shared by many--that if enacted this measure would expose workers to intimidation and the fear of retaliation for votes cast. We simply cannot allow this assault on democracy from becoming law. Instead, we should be working for the swift enactment of S. 1312, the Secret Ballot Protection Act of 2007, which I am proud to cosponsor along with 26 of my colleagues, to ensure secret ballot elections for employees. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 800 and to halt the full Senate's debate on this ill-conceived, flawed measure.