Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Kennedy. I know the bill does do some good things with regard to Pell grants and to focusing more of our loan money on some of the professions and areas of our economy that need more students involved, so I salute that. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I have supported the loan programs and the Pell grants. I like the Pell Grant Program. That is focused on a person of lower income. We probably do have lower income students in Alabama, and we probably benefitted nicely under the Pell Grant Program compared to more blessed States such as Massachusetts. I simply would ask the question, the question I raise is: If you have two persons in nursing school and one is maybe already a nurse but trying to get a higher degree and she works and keeps her debt down, the one who does not do that gets more benefit than the other. It does only favor those in the public sector and not in the private sector. I believe this bill continues the emphasis, which I support, on maybe having better Pell grant provisions for those who do math and science and some of the areas in which we have shortages. I believe it goes further than that, does it not? I know we did that last year. I think that was a good step in trying to help deal with shortage areas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Would you yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the floor--I believe I still am recognized--I know Senator Kennedy has never offered a finance- related amendment on a bill that hasn't cleared the Finance Committee. I am teasing a little bit because we all knew this bill is open to this kind of amendment, I think, and that is why I wanted to offer that AMT fix. We have voted on it before. It is something that I think we need to be more educated about and that is the reason I wanted to offer that. I will not offer it at this time, if Senator Mikulski wishes to speak on the education amendment, but I hope that will not bar me from getting the floor a little later and seeking to call up that extra amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the education bill before us is troubling in the fundamental ways that Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, has pointed out, in that it utilizes our reconciliation process to, instead of containing spending and helping to balance the budget, actually increase spending substantially for a lot of new programs. I wish to talk about one of those programs today that I think should not be a part of this legislation. So I have offered this amendment to strike that provision. It is an idea that sounds good. It is something about which I have had at one time or another individuals ask me to support, always for their particular business, their particular agency of Government, and I have felt that I could not support it. One reason was, how can we justify supporting one agency of Government over another? So I guess, in one sense, this legislation fixes that problem and covers everybody, and more. Let me tell my colleagues what it does. The idea is, if a person pays their loan debt and they are part of a direct Government loan program, that after 10 years they could get a large part of that debt forgiven. That sounds good, but let me discuss why I think this is bad public policy, why it is a new Government program we should not start, and why it is absolutely inevitable that it will grow and cost more and more as time goes along. Let me show how broad this program is. There would be a student loan forgiveness program that would provide forgiveness of loans to public emergency management employees, government employees, public safety, public law enforcement--these could be State, county, or local, I presume--public health, public education, public early childhood education, public childcare, social work in a public child or family service agency, public services for individuals with disabilities, public services for the elderly, public interest legal services, public library services, public school library sciences, or other public school-based services, or those on full-time faculty at a tribal college or university. That is what is included. That is a big deal. It eliminates one of my concerns of why pick and choose Government agencies; it just covers them all. Let me express why I think there are some good principled public policy concerns and objections and why I do not think this is a good step for us to take. For example, there is no limit in this legislation on the total amount of loan forgiveness, which creates a discrepancy between the rich and the poor. Graduates of expensive schools with a lot of debt would receive quite a sizable benefit under this program, while students who work their way through college, go to a community college, would receive nothing if they didn't have any debt. The National Association for College Admission Counseling reports that the average cost of a community college is less than half of that for a public college and one-tenth of a private 4-year college. So who is being helped here? Half of low-income students attend community colleges while only 1 in 10 high-income students attend community colleges. Further, the lowest priced colleges are 2-year public colleges in the West, for example, with average tuition fees of $1,300. The highest priced colleges in the country are 4-year private colleges in New England with average tuition fees of $28,000. Section 401 then creates a perverse incentive to take out the maximum amount of student loans. Rather than encouraging better public policy, I submit, that would encourage students to work their way through college and families to help them make their way through college instead. Instead of moving in that direction, this bill would clearly move us in the direction that one would borrow more money and have the expectation that the Government will help them pay it off at some point later on. Also, I ask why we would single out public service Government workers for this kind of benefit--there are millions of Government workers--and exclude productive citizens working in low-income jobs in the private sector who could also benefit from a similar program? Why are they left out? What principled argument is there for that? Certainly, most people working in private businesses don't have as good a retirement plan or health care plan as Government employees do. Now we are going to help them pay their tuition from taxpayers' money that comes from people in the private sector who are not getting these benefits. Why should a public employee be elevated to a higher class of treatment of loan forgiveness than those in the private sector, those hard-working American taxpayers who are not lucky enough to have an air-conditioned office and a Government-sector job? Public service is an honor, and as public servants, I don't think we need to ask or should think to ask to elevate our number to a higher status than that of average working Americans. There are many hard-working Americans in the private sector who contribute to society and who would benefit from the program. I think about attorneys who need help. What about small town attorneys working hard to start a practice, or nurses, educators, inventors, small business employees, a cook who has gone to college to try to get a financial business degree so they can one day run a restaurant, department store managers who want to be CEO's one day, electricians or plumbers who want to establish their own businesses and go back to college and work their way through and keep their debt down? These people pay taxes that benefit a Government worker who has a lifetime job, probably making more than they are, certainly with a lot more job security than they would have, and countless others around the country. Why should we benefit one and not the other? These are people paying taxes too. I haven't seen that we have difficulty getting people to take Government jobs. They are pretty attractive out there, the truth be known. So somebody goes off to a big expensive college and gets a big expensive degree and owes $75,000 or $100,000. Well, the Government is going to help them pay that back but not help the guy out there on the street corner trying to make a living to pay his back--the same person who is paying the taxes that are paying not only the salary now for the Government employee but now will pay their education costs. There is no principled basis that justifies them to be entitled to loan repayments more than there would be for someone in the private sector. There is no means test for this program. It doesn't matter under this program if the public employee has millions of dollars in the bank. If you had millions of dollars in the bank, and you knew you were going to get a job where the Government was going to help you pay back the loan, why wouldn't you borrow the money to go to college instead of paying for it yourself? This incentivizes people, I suggest, perversely, to borrow money to go to college rather than working their way through or utilizing the millions of dollars they may have. Let me say this. I am not against assisting people to pay for a college education. But we are spending billions of dollars on higher education through direct benefits to colleges and universities, loans, subsidies, and grants. Total student aid, including grants from all sources, plus loans, work study, and tax benefits from the Federal Government, increased by 95 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars over the decade from 1995-96 to 2005-06. So we are spending more to help our people go to college, by putting more Pell grants and loan money out there. I think Senator Kennedy's concern about abuse of the private loan program is valid. I was inclined to support the Burr amendment, but I am of the view that the program was subject to too much abuse and we needed to fix it. But I will note this about this amendment: It creates an unequal footing between the Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan Program--Senator Alexander was referring to those programs--because the only people to get benefits under this loan repayment program would have to go through the Direct Loan Program. The competition between these two programs, it has generally been held, and the Senate believes, will benefit students, and that is why we didn't eliminate the private loan program even in this bill we are passing. So allowing loan forgiveness solely through the Direct Loan Program is not principled, I think, at all. It will undoubtedly give an advantage to the Direct Loan Program as students have no other route in which to receive loan forgiveness than to borrow under the Direct Loan Program. Let me say this--and I didn't realize this until recently: 82 percent of the schools in my home State of Alabama do not use the Direct Loan Program but participate in the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Students graduating from my small alma mater, Huntingdon College, a liberal arts college, would not be eligible because Huntingdon is not a direct loan school. Schools choose FFELP because the private sector offers the better services, they think, and saves them money. Nationally, this statistic is around 80 percent. So 80 percent of the colleges and universities in our country are not in the Direct Loan Program, and under this plan you wouldn't benefit unless you were in it. They say: Well, you could consolidate your loans under the Direct Loan Program and, therefore, then you could get repayment. But isn't that a tilting of the scales and a perverse benefit to the Direct Loan Program, which is supposed to be on a competitive basis to see who offers the best incentive to the students to get a good loan program? They get to choose now which they think is best. So I don't think that providing this incentive to clearly favor the Direct Loan Program and exclude the other is good public policy. I am not aware that those who voted for it understood it might have done that. Studies show that when you extend your loan, sometimes you end up paying more interest than going on and paying them off. The Federal Family Education Loan Program is far more popular than the Direct Loan Program at present because they have tended to offer lower interest rates and quality service, but I think there are some abuses, too, and, hopefully, this bill will tighten that up. I will conclude on this matter by saying this is the kind of program that truly, colleagues, should strike fear in the heart of anyone concerned about the expansion and growth of Federal spending and Federal programs. It will create a new Federal bureaucracy. Next year, I predict--since this bill says you have to be regular in your payment of your student loan to qualify for this program--I will predict next year we will be providing exceptions to those who have lost their jobs, who have had an illness or who have had other kinds of problems; or we will be having lawsuits and administrative hearings over whether this or that person qualifies to have part of their loan forgiven based simply on the fact they work for some Government or public agency. If we want to help public employees, let us do it in a more direct manner. Why should we provide a benefit program that helps those who go to some expensive college, maybe don't work while they go to college, and end up with a big debt? Let's say two individuals are working at the county health department or the EMA and one of them ran up a big debt and the Government helps them pay it off; while the other one, who worked their way through college, doesn't get anything. That is not a good way to help people, in my view. It is also, again I submit, bad public policy because it encourages and incentivizes people not to pay their way through but to borrow money. We would like to have a different incentive. Good public policy should do that. I also see no principled basis to provide this benefit solely to the Direct Loan Program and not to the other loan programs. It is a clear tilt from one side to the other when 80 percent of the American colleges and universities are not in the Federal Direct Loan Program. So I would say, first of all, the way it is structured today it will not be a huge, costly program for our country, but it is not based on good principles, No. 1; No. 2, it is going to be expanded, you can be sure, in the future; and No. 3, it will create another bureaucracy, another Government program, when we already have Pell grants and loan programs that we are pumping more and more money into every year. I suggest if we have ideas about helping people with their loans, we focus on existing loan programs and not create this one that is unprincipled in its results. Mr. President, has Senator Kennedy had an opportunity to think about that other amendment I was going to call up?

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to do so. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2333.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is No. 2342.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, for the purpose of offering my amendments, that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to offer two amendments, No. 2333 and No. 2342 en bloc.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I was in that area, also, in the spring and was there last fall. Last fall, I thought it was one of the worst briefings, the most troubling briefings I had about the condition in the al-Anbar region. I say to the Senator, you have been there, I guess, within the last week. It was a dramatic turnaround. One of the thoughts that went in my mind was: Why would I ever want to bet against the U.S. Marines. They were out there having a tough challenge, but this thing has turned around, has it not? I ask the Senator, is that his view, from talking to the people on the ground, as they explained it to us?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are indeed dealing with a serious subject that gives us all great pause and concern. I know my colleagues have had a sign that they have put up: Let us vote. I think it is important to recall that 53 days ago, we voted. We voted in this Congress to authorize and appropriate the funds to execute the surge that General Petraeus is right now executing in Iraq. That is what we did. It was a vote of 80 to 14. Less than 2 months ago, we voted to do that. Many of the speakers tonight saying we must withdraw right now, we must have a new strategy, have forgotten that when we cast those votes 53 days ago, we were executing a new strategy then. Are we now going to have another one? Virtually all of the individuals who spoke voted for that funding, voted knowing that General Petraeus would lead this surge and voted knowing that we would be having a report in September and we could work through that report to decide how we would conduct this war in the future. The Levin amendment is, indeed, a very important amendment. There is nothing small about this. It is critical. It requires our full attention. We must recognize that. I do believe it is inescapable that the Levin amendment calls for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Those troops not withdrawn will be directed by this Congress today by this vote on how they will conduct operations in Iraq. As our distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arizona, said, we will be telling our soldiers what they can and cannot do, whom they can and cannot wage war against, and how they will be conducting it. A group of politicians in an air-conditioned room sitting in Washington developing a political compromise is going to tell commanders how to deploy our soldiers in the field. So the issues have special urgency because right now American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are in harm's way. No one is afraid to stand up to the President. Our challenge is to do the right thing, the right thing for America, the right thing for our soldiers, the right thing for history. I believe my colleague from Michigan said we will be judged on how we leave. I was thinking the other day about that phrase someone said: Nothing so became them save their manner of leaving. I would alter it somewhat and suggest that someone might say: Nothing so ill became them save their manner of leaving. If we do it wrong, if we do it in a way that leads to mass slaughter or disorder, death, instability in the entire region, it is a threat to the peace of the region. It is this Congress, not just the President, which authorized the use of force in Iraq in the beginning. We have confirmed the commander of those military personnel that are there now. We have provided the money and resources to maintain and to carry out that military operation. Those wonderful military personnel of ours have worked and fought and bled and died as a result of the policies we have authorized. It is our responsibility. We can't just blame it on the President. They have performed nobly and served this country well. While I have never felt that I have had enough time in Iraq and that I have been able to learn everything I would like, I have visited that country six times. I talked to our soldiers there, our Guard, Reserve, Active Duty, those from Alabama and from other States. I talk to them in airports and their families in my State. They have done a great job. The biggest complaint I have heard consistently is: Why don't people tell the good things that we do and that occur? All we hear is the bad. I hear that a great deal. But the truth is, for reasons unconnected to the fine work of our soldiers, things have not gone as well as we had hoped in Iraq. The Iraq mission has been very difficult in terms of lives lost, wounded, and the cost. While the initial military action went far better than many of us expected, the aftermath has been marked by errors, violence, and frustration. Particularly at this point, we are disappointed that the Iraqi Government has been unable to produce the kind of political leadership that would be beneficial to reducing the violence. It is a real frustration for us. There is no easy solution to it. They say we don't understand their difficulties. I suspect some people can't understand why Congress can't do things as they would like to have them do also. Perhaps our biggest error as we went into this war was to underestimate the difficulty of creating a functioning government in an area of the world that has not had one before. This is not an easy thing. It is a very difficult thing. We have to be realistic about that in the future. For those in Congress, for the American people and our generals, there is certainly no one easy solution, and there is no certain outcome. But we do know the outcome is very important to the Iraqi people, to the people of the region, and to us. We need to get it right. I earnestly hope we can draw down our troop levels in Iraq soon. Nothing would make me happier than to see that happen. But we must do it correctly, smartly. We can't do it precipitously. We can't do it here, without even listening to our general in Iraq whom we just sent there to command those troops, without even getting his opinion. This is his third year, third tour in Iraq. He was there when the initial invasion occurred. I visited with him when he commanded the 101st Airborne in Mosul. He came back and trained the Iraqi military. He came back home for the second time and wrote the manual on how to defeat an insurgency. Now he is back over there executing that, and we knew all that when we sent him. How can we write a policy of withdrawal and to direct the limited purposes for which our troops can be used and then set forth three purposes for which they can be used and the people that they can take military action against and we haven't even heard from our commander? What kind of sense is that? What kind of responsibility is that? They say: If we don't threaten to withdraw, they won't reconcile and do all the things we want them to do in the Government. If we have to do more than threaten to withdraw if they don't do those things, we are going to have to just withdraw because they haven't satisfied our ambitions and goals for their successful political development. Proponents of the Reed-Levin amendment claim that we must withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq because it is the only way to bring a responsible end to the war and to force the Iraqi Government to act. Actually, such a withdrawal required by the amendment is far more likely to consign the Iraqi people to mass slaughter. The Iraq Study Group specifically--that is the group which has been so often cited, the independent group--concluded: A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions. The study further concluded: The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, great human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Similarly, the intelligence community concluded in the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, earlier this year that the consequences of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq prior to Iraq being able to provide for its own security would be sectarian violence, that sectarian violence would significantly increase, accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement. Get that? Sectarian violence would significantly increase, accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement. The intelligence community pointed out how this mass chaos in Iraq would directly threaten the security of the U.S. homeland as it concluded al- Qaida would attempt to use Anbar Province to further attacks outside Iraq. General Hayden, Director of the CIA, succinctly testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in response to the question what would happen if we pulled out now from Iraq--that was the question to the Director of the CIA--he said succinctly three quick areas: more Iraqis die from the disorder inside Iraq; Iraq becomes a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the one al-Qaida had in Afghanistan; and the conflict in Iraq bleeds over into the neighborhood and threatens serious regional instability. The Iraq Study Group concluded al-Qaida would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. They have already claimed historic victory over the Soviet Union. I ask: Is this a responsible way to leave? Is this a way to see what we have done in Iraq end? Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, said we need to pull out of Iraq so we can ``drive the terrorists back to the darkest caves and corners of the Earth.'' Well, that is a good goal, I suggest. But tell me how that goal would be furthered if we pulled out and gave a safe haven in Iraq to al-Qaida and provided them with a victory of historic proportions. Wouldn't that embolden them? Wouldn't that enable them to recruit more people? Do you think they are then just going to be satisfied there? Wouldn't they then have the initiative? Would not they then be looking where they would hit next? Our Democratic colleagues argue that it is somehow wrong for those who oppose the Levin amendment to utilize the full procedural protections available to a minority in the Senate. It wasn't wrong when they were using those manners on a regular basis, trust me. I think we set a record last year or the year before on these filibusters and the number of times it took 60 votes to do something or not succeed in getting 60 votes. But they suggest that somehow it is inappropriate to use our well-established, commonly used procedure, routinely done, to require 60 votes on a matter of great importance such as this. Of course, I would suggest that is when, in matters of great importance, the 60-vote rule is most needed and most appropriate. To press the point further, I strongly believe that whatever the inclinations of Senators on the conduct of the war in Iraq, to change our strategy now before we even hear from General Petraeus in September would be a colossal blunder for a host of reasons. To do so would be unthinkable. It must not and I believe will not happen. This Senator would be derelict in his duty if he did not make use of every traditional proper rule of procedure in this Senate to see that it does not happen, and that I will do. We agreed to execute this surge and to take a report in September. That is what we should do. We already have a new strategy. We debated it at length in April and in May. Bipartisan meetings occurred. The Democratic leader and the Republican leader went to the White House, and they talked and they talked, and we finally agreed and passed, 80 to 14, the bill that funds this surge. That is our new strategy. We knew exactly what we were voting for. There was no dispute about it. We were voting for an increase in American soldiers in Iraq and a new emphasis on General Petraeus's strategy of counterinsurgency and increasing security in Baghdad particularly. That is the strategy General Petraeus is now executing. Are we now to change it again? Are we now to have a strategy de jure or a new one every week based on coffee shop talk or some poll that just came in? Senator Reid earlier today quoted polls that said people agree with him. He said someone talked to his brother. Let's get real here. The established bipartisan policy that we passed 80 to 14, 53 days ago, must not be lightly changed on polls and anecdotes--change without even listening to the general who is in Iraq, seeking his opinion. It would embarrass the United States before our allies and the world. Indeed, U.N. Security General Ban Ki-moon yesterday urged us to exercise ``great caution'' in considering a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. He said: It is not my place to inject myself into this discussion taking place between the American people, government and Congress. But I'd like to tell you that a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people. Any abrupt withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration. Well, is that a product of President Bush's pressure or some hardheadedness? No. The Secretary General is very worried that we may abruptly alter our commitments and policies without any rational plan for what would happen next. A rushed withdrawal, I think, could even signal political panic. It could signal a lack of seriousness and thoughtfulness. It is unthinkable that the Senate would vote to flip-flop our strategy while our soldiers at this very moment work to execute the congressional policy we assigned them 54 days ago. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi will have in effect taken over, I suppose, as Commander in Chief in conducting this military action and begun to direct the very deployment of our soldiers on the battlefield, telling them what they can and cannot do, without any advice from the military and, indeed, contrary to our Commander's wishes and opinions. They do not even want to hear his report, the one we asked him to give just a few days ago. Well, maybe somebody, if they are going to take over that, would have to tell him what we voted on if this bill were to pass. Hopefully, it will not. A phone call might go like this: General Petraeus, this is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I know we confirmed you to lead the new surge, and after much debate we voted on May 24, 80 to 14, to approve and to fully fund your new surge strategy. I voted ``yes'' for it, too. But that was then. That was 54 days ago. Since then we have heard from antiwar activists--some of them come in cute pink suits and wear crowns--from many concerned citizens, and somebody talked to my brother, and maybe a few pollsters and political consultants have been consulted. So just forget that old strategy. We now have voted for a new one. It will be very popular here. Prepare for rapid withdrawal of your forces. Your work is a failure. You will not succeed. We do not want to listen to your report. Just make sure you comply with our mandates and pull out of there. Well, he might go on--the majority leader might--well, yes, we did say you would have until your report in September, but that promise was a long time ago. It was 54 days ago. Much has changed here at home. Just follow our new strategy. Well, General Petraeus, I know you feel something is owed to our soldiers out there who are at risk working to execute the surge strategy we supported just 54 days ago. Just tell them we changed our minds. You say they will be let down if they are stopped before they have an opportunity to achieve success? I do not think so. They will get over it. Well, maybe that is a bit unfair. Maybe that is not a fair way to deal with it. But with a little senatorial poetic license, I think it makes a sort of point. Many have said that President Bush lied to get us into this war. I reject that. But what is the integrity in voting on a policy in May that puts 30,000 more soldiers in harm's way and then we pull the plug on them before they have half a chance to be successful? Our military will go where we ask them to go. They will go into harm's way. They are willing to put their lives on the line. They do not want to be put on the line if we are not going to follow through to success in the end. Among the other adverse ramifications of a precipitous withdrawal, a failure of will by the Congress that denies our military a fair chance to be successful, I think could be damaging to the morale of the finest military we have ever had. I think it is an important matter. There are a lot of things we need to be thinking about. I do not know how this war will come out. I am anxious to hear General Petraeus's report. He finished at the top of his class at West Point or near the top. He was No. 1 in his class at the Command and General Staff College. He has his Ph.D from Princeton. He is a Ranger combat commander of the 101st Airborne, and he has written the manual on how to defeat an insurgency. He has only had his full complement of the surge troops about 3 weeks. I believe it is premature and immature for us to react in this way and vote to bring those soldiers home, to reorder how they will be deployed without even seeking his opinion or giving it sufficient thought. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we are talking about some very serious issues that impact the life and safety of our soldiers whom we have called on to serve us in Iraq. It is a matter the American people care about, and we owe them the most careful study. To my distinguished colleague, the assistant Democratic majority leader, Senator Durbin, I would say one thing about a change in strategy. We voted to change our strategy. We voted 80 to 14, 53 days ago, to change our strategy, to send General Petraeus and fund the surge that is going on in Iraq. That is our strategy. We just voted on this. In fact, a few weeks ago, the last part of that surge arrived in Iraq. What, are we going to change it again, this month? Later this week, we will vote on the Levin amendment to decide whether to change, again, our strategy in Iraq. Changing strategy by Congress during a time of war, particularly making changes that are opposed by the military and our Commander in Chief, is not a small matter. Our decisions deal with war and how to achieve peace and will affect the safety and the mission of those magnificent men and women who now serve us in Iraq. For the busy American, the casual observer, and even the world citizen, it may be this is an appropriate time to vote on this subject again. Certainly, the frustration in our country and inside all of us is high and we are deeply concerned. I would note that I think all of us agree that quite a number of errors have taken place in our military actions in Iraq. I suggest perhaps the most serious error was our belief that we could, too readily, alter this Government in Iraq and create a new government that would be effective virtually overnight. That is contrary to good, conservative principles. These people in Iraq have never had a heritage of a functioning government other than brutality, and it is very difficult to do. I think we are finding out it is very difficult to do. It can't be done as quickly as many of us would like to have thought when this activity was begun some years ago. But with regard to this change in policy, I suggest the Members in the Senate know better. We know it is not appropriate to be changing our policy again. We know that any nation, especially one that aspires to be a great nation, must deal with these life-and-death matters with maturity and sound judgment. We know if we were to lift our eyes off politics and emotion, that our country, striving to do good, is facing a most difficult challenge in Iraq. Things have not gone well. Our terrorist enemies are watching our politics with great interest. Sometimes they play us like a Stradivarius. And so our allies are watching. So, indeed, is the whole world. The terrorists are quite sophisticated and strive to produce a continuous series of bloody headlines to affect American public opinion. Our judgment, our character, our principles, our very souls are being tested. But this Nation has faced tough times before. Don't we remember the history of Washington at Valley Forge or the burning of our own Capitol by the British in 1812 or the brutal bloody Civil War or the massive deaths in World War I or the attack on Pearl Harbor or the Italian campaign, the ferocious battles for Iwo Jima, Okinawa, D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge or the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean war? These are major moments in American history, and blunders in strategy and tactics and timing occurred in almost every one of them. Many errors occurred. Failures that cost lives unnecessarily, placed our Nation at greater risk than was necessary. But that is the nature of war. Enemies lose a great deal of sleep trying to figure out what the weaknesses are of their adversary and trying to exploit that, and frequently they are successful, to a point. But certainly it is appropriate, even in times of war, that the Congress question and challenge the Commander in Chief and our military generals. But that challenge must be, no matter how vigorous, responsible, and honest. Our domestic politics are quite partisan, true; and, frankly, I have been a little disappointed at the nature of the debate I have heard this afternoon. Republican this and Republican that and President Bush this and President Bush that--it sounds more like politics than a sincere effort to reach the proper decision about what our future course should be. Still, no one should deny that a congressional response to a war, a war that over three-quarters of us voted to authorize, should rise above political gain. With some exceptions, this Congress I think has done so. Truly, there is great concern in our land about the war in Iraq. It is real and justified. I readily admit my concern. I will admit I am not able to state with certainty today what our long-term course should ultimately be or how this will all play out in the end. Therefore, I do not contest the sincerity of those who will disagree with my conclusions. I can only state my views honestly and forthrightly because that is what I have been elected to do, and that is what our soldiers who depend on us for support expect of me. First, I strongly believe this Nation cannot flop around, changing its policy from month to month. That would be immature. It would result in bad execution of this military effort, this war. It would demoralize our soldiers who are walking the streets of Iraq this very moment because we sent them there. Additionally, this Congress funded their military operations. We funded them. Our duly elected President, our Commander in Chief, has directed the policy with the advice of his commanders in the field. That is what it is. That is what is going on. That is what is happening. Now we had a great debate in April and May over whether to fund the so called ``surge'' that President Bush and the Defense Department requested. This is the surge that has, a few weeks ago, reached its full strength. After the full debate, Congress could have said no to the President on his request for the surge and not provided those funds. Fourteen Senators did vote no. But we said yes by an overwhelming vote of 80 to 14. On May 24, less than 2 months ago, we authorized the surge and, more importantly, we passed an emergency supplemental to fund this surge. Nothing required us in Congress to do that. We concluded it was the right thing to do, considering the serious alternatives that existed. Because of the concerns we all had at that time, we required an interim report on July 15th, which has been received on time. We also called for a complete report from General Petraeus, in September, on the status of his efforts and our soldiers' work. Of course, we had voted to confirm General Petraeus by a vote of 99 to 0 to command this operation. There was no mistake then concerning the seriousness of the situation we were in. As General Petraeus described the challenge: It is difficult but not impossible. We were in no way misled about the difficulties we faced, nor were we unaware of the most serious ramifications of a failure in Iraq. Thus, on May 24, this Congress, with an overwhelming majority, said: Let's go with the surge. But we said: General Petraeus, we will expect you to give us a full, complete, and honest report in September as to how it is going with the good and the bad, and set out specific benchmarks we want you to address. That he promised to, do, and off he went. Yet even before the personnel who were to be deployed to effect this surge had even arrived in Iraq, the Democratic majority leader, Senator Reid, who voted for the surge, to my dismay, declared it a failure. While the troops were still arriving, the Democratic leader, the majority leader of the Senate, declared the surge a failure. To me it is unthinkable that this Congress would pull the plug on this operation before it has had a fair chance to work, and we have had a fair chance to evaluate its effectiveness. We voted for it 53 days ago. What must the world community think, friend and adversary alike? Does not such immaturity of action reflect poorly on us as a nation? Nothing has occurred since that time of decision in May to justify concluding that the situation in Iraq has significantly changed for the worse? In fact, there are indications that some improvements have occurred. We know that General Petraeus, last year, after two tours in Iraq, 2 years over there, came home and last year wrote the Department of Defense doctrine on how to defeat an insurgency. His expertise was much noted when we confirmed him to go take charge of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who would effectuate this effort. Nowhere in his manual did he ever suggest an insurgency could be defeated in 50 days, or 90 days, or 120 days. Victory, we must admit--if you read his manual--takes time, diligence, determination, and smart application of politics, weaponry, and forces. His manual sets out methods for how to achieve victory against an insurgency, the methods for victory. There is simply no basis at this point to conclude that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have failed in executing this policy. In fact, they are moving out with vigor. After seeing a reduction of sectarian violence in Baghdad by two-thirds. This is the sectarian violence, the murders that were occurring between hit squads, Shia and Sunni, as a result of the violence kicked off by the attack by al-Qaida on the Samara mosque, and their determined, effective policy to create violence between the Shia and the Sunni. That is what al-Qaida set out to do, and they succeeded last year. We have seen that drop by two-thirds, although bombings still occur, and the bombings are suicidal, many times with large bombs that kill large numbers of civilians in shopping areas. But today some of our troops are moving out of Baghdad into the toughest areas outside Baghdad, such as the Dyala Province, and making, it appears, progress there. As our soldiers confront enemy strongholds, some of which have never before been cleared, they demonstrate professionalism and courage that reflect the finest qualities that have ever been demonstrated by American soldiers. Nor, let me add, has anything occurred that suggests this new strategy is flawed and will not succeed and should be abandoned 53 days since we agreed to see it forward. So with respect, I conclude it would be irresponsible in the extreme to have this bunch of politicians sitting in air-conditioned offices in Washington reverse a strategy we approved 53 days ago. But that is exactly what the Levin-Reed amendment would do. I have tremendous respect for Senator Levin. He is a superb chairman of the Armed Services Committee. But I do not agree with him on this point. I do not believe this is right. If you were a soldier or a marine and you had just moved into a tough terrorist neighborhood in Iraq, following the directions given to you by your President and your Congress, and you saw your comrades take casualties, maybe killed in the course of executing that policy, all in the belief that somebody up there back in Washington had finally settled on a workable plan for victory, and then before your work is half done, in less than 2 months, you learn the folks up there had now changed their mind again, how would you feel? Wouldn't you think we do not take our mission of our soldiers and what they are doing seriously? We owe our military better than that. We owe them the same courage and character they are displaying right now. On the birthday of our Army, I was at a celebration and met a young soldier. I thanked him for his service and began to explain my concern about the long deployments we were asking them to undertake. He cut in, saying, ``Senator, we just want to win.'' Before all that is just, this Congress must not fail such men. The Levin amendment is pernicious in more ways than I am able to discuss at this time. It must not pass. We know a full review of our policies will occur in September. We agreed on that in May. That is critically important and valuable. I support such a review. I am open minded about what we will decide to do in September. I hope and pray we will be able to reduce the number of our soldiers and begin a mature, effective way to reduce that deployment in Iraq, but we will decide our next step then. To execute a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq now, regardless of the conditions on the battlefield, and regardless of the advice of our commanders in the field, is unthinkable. It would be a stain on this Senate for years to come. Has anybody bothered to express an interest in what General Petraeus has to say about it? Things don't always go well. My favorite statue in Washington is one that conveys the most historical import, I think, the one of General Grant right down here in front of the Capitol. He sits astride his horse, his campaign hat pulled down, his coat wrapped around, his head tilted slightly forward, a perfect picture of determination in the face of great difficulty. It is said 600,000 died in that war on both sides. Over 440,000 Americans died in World War II. This Nation has seen dark days before, days darker than these. So let's keep our poise and our wits about us. Let's give General Petraeus and his courageous military personnel a chance to effect the strategy we agreed on and asked him to effect. There are other important issues I will suggest to my colleagues as we discuss the Levin amendment. I will note a few briefly. The surge report. The language in our affirmation of the surge in May called for a report that had benchmarks for improvements in Iraq. Those benchmarks have been much commented upon, but these benchmarks for improvement did not declare that all or any of the benchmarks must be met by September or even by July 15, the time of our interim report. They were to be objective markers by which we could judge progress and lack of it, and they were surely not exhaustive of every issue and challenge we faced in Iraq. The fact that progress has been made in only half of those benchmark areas does not mean, of course, we should now up and declare the new operation a failure and that we should now cut and run. How could anyone conclude this July 15 report that shows limited early progress in only some areas means General Petraeus has failed? All the extra soldiers arrived there only 3 weeks ago. It is also important to note that the benchmarks seemed to focus on the performance we wish to see by the central government, and they have not been meeting their responsibilities, in my view. I had my sixth visit there this spring. I was able to share that view and that frustration of the American people with the top leaders in Iraq, including Prime Minister Maliki. We believe they need to do more in the central government. But, for example, the benchmarks provided no credit at all for the stunning progress that has occurred in the al-Anbar region, progress that has resulted at the ground level where Sunni tribal leaders have partnered with the marines to rout whole groups of al-Qaida operatives. Similar progress, though smaller, it appears, seems to be occurring in other areas at the local level. So the benchmarks do not consider those events and whether progress is being made, but they are important as we evaluate what our situation truly is. We must remember that while sectarian violence continues, and it has occurred in large part as a direct result of al-Qaida's strategy to foment it, safety and security in the capital city is important in furthering political reconciliation. I wish I could agree with the idea of my able colleague Senator Levin when he declared that peace and security in Iraq can only come as a result of a political settlement. Thus, he would suggest if a parliament cannot settle all of the difficult political issues on the timetable we set, we must leave, because this is the only thing that will make them agree on policy, our threatening to leave, and our actual leaving, it appears, because his amendment would require an actual departure from much of Iraq. Well, I wish it were so easy. But, in truth, our commanders believe, our State Department believes, and I believe, it is far more complicated than that. Of course, a political settlement and reconciliations are critical to any long-term stability. But will not a reduction of violence and a more secure Baghdad be an event that will make political progress more possible? That is what the generals are telling us, that when the capital city is in a constant state of violence and disorder, how can we expect the Parliament to be able to function and to provide a peaceful settlement of the disputes that need to be settled long term for a healthier Iraq? I think we have a new strategy. We voted on it 53 days ago. We agreed to fund it. That is what the Congress does, we either put up the money or we do not put up the money. By a vote of 80 to 14 we put up the money to fund this strategy. We asked for a report in September, and now we have an amendment that has garnered quite a lot of political headlines and provided a lot of forums, a lot of ability to come forward on the floor of the Senate to attack President Bush and Republicans, but it is not a very responsible thing. The responsible thing is for us to do what we said 53 days ago--to demand a full, complete, and honest report by General Petraeus in September, and at that point to evaluate the situation in Iraq and establish a strategy and a policy going forward from there that serves our national interest. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield 1 minute for my response? I thank Senator Nelson for his comments. I agree with him that, properly read, our legislation does what he says. But I even had a military person think that perhaps we had done something to weaken our commitment. I think others, such as the Washington Post, may have overinterpreted some of the things that are in that language. I believe this would be a good way to clarify our policy. I thank him for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this amendment, which has been modified in agreement with my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle to reach an amendment I think we can all support, would state it is the policy of the United States that we should have a system that will protect the United States and its allies against Iranian ballistic missiles. The findings are that Congress finds that Iran maintains a nuclear program in continued defiance of the international community, while developing ballistic missiles of increasing sophistication and range that pose a threat to the forward-deployed forces of the United States and to its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies in Europe, and which eventually pose a threat to the United States homeland. That is the problem we are dealing with. So we would state with clarity, so there is not any doubt about it--and I think our bill we passed in committee does that, but some have misinterpreted it, in my opinion--that it would state that it is our policy to develop and deploy as soon as technologically possible, in conjunction with allies and other nations wherever possible, an effective defense against the threat of Iran as described in the previous paragraph.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and I thank him for his leadership as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, of which I am the ranking member. I want to assert again that I have been pleased to work with him and value his judgment and insight, and value his insight with regard to amendment No. 2024, which I have filed a modification to, and I now ask that amendment, as modified, be called up at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to yield to Senator Nelson if he wishes to share some thoughts. The amendment offered today, simply put, acknowledges that we have a growing threat to peace and security that arises from Iran's nuclear and missile program, and this amendment would make it the policy of the United States to develop effective defenses against this threat as soon as possible. The amendment also emphasizes the need to ensure that the defenses we deploy are coordinated with existing programs of our NATO allies. A number of Senators and Members of the House want to be sure that we coordinate with the NATO allies, and this amendment would call for that. Sadly, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to threaten the United States and our allies and that threat must be recognized and confronted. My amendment signals the resolve of the United States to do that. At a time when Iran is openly threatening to destroy the United States and our various allies--and is providing weapons, such as explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, which we have pretty clearly traced to Iran today, and that are killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan--demonstrating our understanding of the seriousness of their threat and their purpose is critical for us to have clear thinking and sound policy. So I appreciate my colleagues, such as Senator Lieberman, who spoke eloquently and offered an amendment on the need to confront Iran's support of worldwide terrorism, which we voted on yesterday--in a very strong vote. I see missile defense as another facet of confronting and facing this threat. Even in the Middle East, where anti-Israel sentiments are all too common, Iran is the only country in the Middle East where the President openly calls for the destruction of Israel. Shortly after taking office in 2005, Ahmadi-Nejad, the President, rallied supporters at a conference, and the conference was called ``A World Without Zionism.'' In that speech he said, ``The current skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said''-- and here he is referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini--``Israel must be wiped off the map.'' But Israel isn't the only target of Iran's crash program to develop long-range missiles with nuclear warheads--long-range missiles they are now developing. He is developing also nuclear warheads. In the same speech Ahmadi-Nejad was quoted as saying this: ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.'' That includes, of course, the United States--us--and our allies in Europe and the Middle East. For anyone who doubts that Ahmadi-Nejad's threat was meant to include America, he has also been quoted as saying this: ``And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.'' A world without the United States. It does not get much more straightforward than that. Arnaud de Borchgrave, an experienced world observer and editor at large of the Washington Times and United Press International, had a piece in the Washington Times yesterday, and he pointed out some of the examples of the kind of extremism, real extremism, we have seen from the Iranian leadership. Now, let me say this: The Iranian people are good people. They have quite an educated population, certainly for that area of the world. There is no need and no justification for Iranian leadership to betray those people, the people of that historic nation, with these kinds of policies. In truth, President Ahmadi-Nejad and certain clerics are damaging the history, the economy, the people, and the reputation of Iran. There is no reason for this. It should not continue. Unfortunately, it is reality. And while we can hope for change, change does not seem likely in the short run. While the people of Iran may, and I think do, oppose this extremism, the President and the extremists, certain mullahs and others, seem to be firmly in control of the country and determined to pursue a radical and extremist ideology and policy. It is not only a tragedy for Iran that this is occurring but for the whole world. Mr. de Borchgrave lists some of the statements that are more than sufficient to alert the world to the dangers and the intentions of the leaders of Iran today. This is what he wrote yesterday, and I quote: Whether Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad said he wants to wipe Israel off the map is still contested, even by anti- mullah Iranian-Americans. But that he wants to wipe out the Jewish state, there can be no doubt. As he completes his visits to every Iranian town, the collection of his pronunciamentos is edifying reading. Culled from a wide variety of sources, ranging from the Agence France Presse, the French national news agency, to the London Daily Telegraph, to the Suddeutsche Zeitung Online, to France's Le Monde and Liberation, Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad spells out the target and the strategy: ``This regime--here he is talking about Israel--will one day disappear. The Zionist regime is a rotten tree that will be blown away by one storm. The countdown for the destruction of Israel has begun. Zionists are the personification of Satan.'' He goes on to say: In the case of any unwise move by the fake regime of Israel, Iran's response will be so destructive and quick the regime will regret its move forever. The west invented the myth of the massacre of the Jews (in World War II) and placed it above Allah, religions, and profits. So he continues to assert that the Holocaust was a myth, invented by the West. What about his strategic plan? We don't shy away from declaring Islam is ready to rule the world. The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon reach the entire world. Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, a 5-year-old boy who vanished 1,100 years ago and who will lead the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but not before the planet is first convulsed by death and destruction. He goes on to say: Soon, Islam will become the dominating force in the world occupying first place in the number of followers among other religions. Is there a craft more beautiful, more sublime, more divine than the craft of giving yourself to martyrdom and becoming holy? Do not doubt, Allah will prevail and Islam will conquer mountaintops of the entire world. Islam can recruit hundreds of suicide bombers a day. Suicide is an invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way and they enlighten our future. The will to commit suicide is one of the best ways of life. This is the President of a country that is steadfastly moving forward to develop nuclear weapons and steadfastly advancing its ability to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles. What does he say about nuclear power? By the grace of Allah we will be a nuclear power and Iran does not give a damn about the IEA, the International Energy Agency, their demands to freeze enrichment of nuclear fuel. Iran does not give a damn about resolutions. That is the U.N. Resolutions. Those are his words. There are other comments. He goes on to say, as I indicated earlier, at this conference on the world without Zionism--the President of Iran said: To those who doubt, to those who say it is not possible, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible. You can say this is an exaggeration. You can say this is not realistic. But I suggest that is the repeated statements of the leader of a very dangerous nation, a nation with real capabilities. They are developing a nuclear capability and an expanding and growing missile capability. I think yesterday Senator Lieberman, after the vote on his amendment, summed it up very well. This is what he said: The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers, to our allies, to our national security is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. Congress today began the process of confronting it. We also need to take one more step in that process by making clear that we are not going to leave our Nation or our allies in Europe vulnerable to any missile threats from Iran. Most Senators were in the room a few weeks ago when the Director of National Intelligence, ADM Mike McConnell, gave us a classified briefing and described in detail the threat posed by Iran. Having received that briefing, I think few of us would doubt that Iran does pose a threat to the security of the United States and our allies. It is a threat to us. It is not something we need to be intimidated about. We don't need to back down to Iran. Militarily there is no doubt in the mind of this Senator or any objective observer's mind what would happen if a conflict developed here. But we need to be realistic, we need to seek to avoid conflict, but we need to pursue policies that will make sure we don't allow our citizens to fall under a risk of a nuclear missile attack. So they are pursuing, under Ahmadi-nejad's leadership, the means to kill millions of people with the single push of a button. When Iran's Shehab-3 missiles are paraded through the streets of Iran, they are draped with banners stating, ``Israel must be wiped off the map.'' That is what they put on their missiles. With a range of 1,300 kilometers and a payload capacity of over 700 kilograms, the Shehab-3 has the capacities to implement Ahmadi-Nejad's genocidal agenda. Iran is also working hard to develop missiles that can reach Europe and the States. The Shehab-4 is well along in development and will reportedly be able to reach most of continental Europe. The Shehab-5 and Shehab-6 have also been discussed in open sources. They are developing those advanced missiles. These sources claim these models will have the capacity to reach the eastern seaboard of the United States. Iran's ability to develop nuclear warheads for those missiles are proceeding apace as well. In April, in a speech at the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, there in Iran, Ahmadi-Nejad stated: I declare that as of today our dear country has joined the nuclear club of nations and can produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale. International Atomic Energy Agency later confirmed that Iranian enrichment capabilities were developing rapidly while our knowledge and understanding of their nuclear program was decreasing. This uncertainty is very disturbing. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported the construction of an underground tunnel complex near its enrichment facilities at Natanz. It appears, therefore, that Iran is preparing to protect and hide its nuclear capabilities. Nothing about Iran's behavior recently suggests that it will use these capabilities in a responsible manner. In fact, to the contrary, we expect Ahmadinejad to use nuclear-tipped missiles to threaten, blackmail, and terrorize the nations that oppose its radical agenda and using them, actually using them based on some of the extreme statements he has made, cannot be placed out of the question. We all remember last March when Iran seized 15 British sailors and held them as hostages. Imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when Iran could take the whole city of London as a hostage with a nuclear threat. According to reports in the Washington Post, the intelligence community assesses that Iran's ICBMs and its nuclear weapons capability will both mature in 2015. That is not that far away. As a result, the cities of the eastern seaboard and of Europe are expected to face the threat of nuclear attack from Iran in less than 8 years. Keep in mind that 2015 is the midpoint of the estimated range. Iran's capability could come online in 2017, later, or even by 2013, if things proceed faster than expected. That may seem like a long way away, but an adequate defense will take a long time to build and we need to start now. According to the Missile Defense Agency, even if Congress fully funded the European defense site--which I hope that we will. We refer to it as the ``third site,'' and it is funded every year--the system would not be up and running until 2013. Any delay to that schedule-- which could happen for a number of reasons--could open up a window of vulnerability during which Iran would have the means to attack us and our allies, perhaps with nuclear weapons, and we will have no means of defending the American people or our allies against them. The good news is we have it in our power to prevent this window of vulnerability and keep it from opening if we commit as a nation to doing so. My amendment represents an opportunity for the Senate to go on record with such a commitment. An effective missile defense, which we would promptly begin to deploy, could convince the Iranian leadership that developing such missiles for their nuclear weapons is a futile undertaking. Perhaps we may have already missed, however, that opportunity to actually deter them in this way, making it all the more important that we get moving on development of the means to defend ourselves and our allies. This amendment is more than about setting U.S. policy on missile defense, it is about sending a message to the rest of the world, our friends and enemies alike, that we take this Iranian threat seriously and we intend to stand up to it. The debate over the third site is being watched with great interest around the world. Some may be drawing conclusions about our commitment to meet this threat head on and doubting that we are committed. In fact, I will note that we effectively deployed and continue to upgrade a national missile defense system that can meet the North Korean missile threat, which is somewhat more advanced than Iran's but not a lot. We know we have this capability and we should do it with Iran also. Imagine sitting in Mr. Ahmadi-nejad's shoes today. He provides sophisticated weapons to our enemies in Iraq, killing hundreds of American troops in the process. In response, one of our colleagues proposed legislation to prohibit the President from attacking Iran without congressional authorization. Ahmadinejad rushes headlong toward a nuclear weapon and long-range delivery capability and both the Senate and the House cut funding for missile defenses that could neutralize the threat. Ahmadi-Nejad must not feel like his bluster and threats will be effective. They will not be. Imagine the conclusions that Vladimir Putin is drawing from those media reports. In February of 2007, Mr. Putin and the Russian Army Chief of Staff, Yury Baluyevsky, threatened to unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, which prohibits the United States and Russia from deploying arsenals of short- and medium-range missiles in Europe. Mr. Putin later suspended Russia's obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, which historically allowed NATO and the Warsaw Pact to remove much of the military personnel and material that was arrayed along Europe's central front during the height of the Cold War. Finally, in June of this year, Putin directly threatened to focus Russia's nuclear arsenal on ``new targets in Europe.'' Putin claimed that ``the strategic balance in the world is being upset'' and that Russia ``will be creating a system of countering that anti-missile system.'' These threats coincided with Russian tests of an advanced ICBM, the RS-24, by Russia. It ought not. Of course, any third site in Europe will be ineffective against the massive missile capability of Russia. We don't have any capability of doing that. We can create a system that will be very effective against anything the Iranians can do in the decades to come but not Russia. Our plans have no intention of affecting Russia. But we also need not be affected by Mr. Putin's bluster or that we be slowed down in our legitimate interests in protecting our country and our allies from Iranian threats by these kinds of comments from the Russians. We reduced somewhat--not greatly--but $84 million in funding for the third site in Europe. Colleagues felt that money could not be effectively spent. They did not believe it was necessary in this year's budget. The problem might be that some would conclude the action by our committee in taking those steps to trim the budget would be a plan to kill missile defenses in Europe. Yesterday, an article in the Christian Science Monitor entitled ``Obstacles Ahead for Missile Defense,'' stated the Senate was opposed to building defenses against Iranian missiles, in effect, saying: In Washington, the Democratic-controlled Congress appears reluctant to fund the move, scrambling its near-term prospects. I don't think that is true. I think there is bipartisan support for creating a missile defense system, but a firm belief exists on the part of my Democratic colleagues that we should not go so fast that it is not done wisely. We have reached a proposal in the legislation as written that we can live with. However, there has been some confusion as to our seriousness in this commitment. In fact, on July 5 the Washington Post ran an article entitled, ``Senate Panel Faults Missile Defense Plan.'' In the article, the Post states: Democrats in Congress are building a legislative roadblock for the Bush administration's plan to place elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. It is an incorrect perception. It undermines our alliance relationships by causing our allies to think we are not committed in a serious way to building a missile defense system that would be effective against Iranian attacks and be protective of Europe. So I think it is therefore incumbent upon us to clarify the Senate's stance. The Poles and the Czechs and other NATO allies have all undertaken the momentous challenge of winning over their populations to the idea of American missile defenses in Europe. They have battled anti- Americanism, pressure from Europe and Russia, because they value our friendship, but more importantly because they realize Europe may soon be vulnerable to Iranian nuclear intimidation and potential nuclear attack unless steps are taken to develop defenses now. I think it would be a slap in the face and unbefitting to our Nation if we were to pull the rug out from under these projects after our allies have stepped up and been supportive of them. We cannot stand idly by, my colleagues, when a madman threatens to destroy the United States and to wipe from the map allies of the United States, then defies the international community by developing the means to carry out these threats. We are the most powerful military in the world, but some people doubt our seriousness and our commitment. In the Middle East, in particular, this perception of weakness can be a fatal error. So I think it is appropriate for us to make clear to Iran and to Russia and to our allies worldwide that we understand that the Iranian danger is clear and present. We must leave no uncertainty in anyone's mind that we intend to defend ourselves and our allies from this threat. Our security, the security of our allies, and the credibility of our commitments are all at stake. I will just add that while the Iranian actions are very troubling, they should be taken very seriously. Iran's words cannot be ignored. I would say one thing further. We have no reason to be intimidated by Iran. We have the capability of defending ourselves, our military, and our interests, and the leaders in Iran need to know this. This Senator is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to defend our national interests. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. And to develop an appropriate response. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kyl, Dole, Inhofe, and Thune be added as cosponsors.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I don't know if my colleague from Florida wants to make a comment now.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Pamela Powers, an Air Force fellow in Senator Collins' office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 1585.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have great respect for my colleague, Senator Feingold. If I am not mistaken, he opposed the authorization of military force in Iraq and has consistently opposed that policy. I am not supportive of the Levin amendment. I think it would result in a precipitous, irresponsible, and dangerous redeployment of our soldiers, confusing to our allies, placing our soldiers who remain in Iraq at greater risk, and placing the Iraqi soldiers, many of whom, indeed, are standing with us right now to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, making their lives more dangerous. In fact, they are taking more casualties than we are. It is not correct to say they are not performing. We wish they would perform much better. We wish the Government was stronger. But, in fact, we are at this very moment shoulder to shoulder in operation after operation around Iraq. I will note this. This is not a little, bitty nation we are leaders of. This is the United States of America, a great nation. Two months ago, the Congress of this great Nation voted to fund the surge in Iraq, and this Senate voted 99 to 0 to confirm General Petraeus to lead that surge. We required an interim report on July 15 on how things are going and a more serious, comprehensive report from General Petraeus himself in September. OK? That is what we did, and that is what we are doing. For the last, I believe, 3 weeks, the surge has been complete. For only 3 weeks have we had the full complement of troops as part of this surge. Already some things have happened militarily that are good in Iraq. So before we get the general's report in September, without anything other than our own opinions from reading newspapers and watching TV and sitting in our air-conditioned offices, we are now going to come along and abrogate what this great Nation did 2 months ago because of some political pressure or some spot they saw on the evening news, placing our soldiers at risk, undermining the policies we are asking them to execute at this very moment. Even pushing for that at this time I think is irresponsible. I wish to be on record as saying I understand the difficulties we are facing in Iraq. I understand the courage our soldiers are displaying. I understand the risks they are subjected to right now, and we want to see the situation improve. All of us do. But we voted for this policy. The surge has just started. We need to give General Petraeus a chance to proceed with it and not flop around irresponsibly and come up with a withdrawal policy that is so rapid that I am not even sure the military can effectively carry it out under the Levin amendment. As a matter of fact, they cannot effectively carry it out. Mr. President, I guess we are still in morning business. I see my colleague, Senator Nelson from Florida, whom I respect so greatly. He chairs the Strategic Subcommittee of which I am pleased to be the ranking member. I believe I am to be recognized in a few minutes on a separate amendment, but if Senator Nelson has some comments he would like to make at this time, I will consider yielding to him and see what our schedule is.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have been blessed in the Armed Service Committee to have outstanding chairmen. I was pleased to serve under Senator McCain and Senator Levin. A lot of hard work has gone into the Defense authorization bills each year I have been here. It is remarkable how much we agree on in committee. We come out with very few differences, and those are reasonable differences that we sometimes can bridge and sometimes we have to vote on and let someone decide. Some of the questions are pretty close questions, whether to fund that system or that program or not, and good people can disagree regardless of their political party. I have been pleased to serve with Senator Bill Nelson on the Strategic Subcommittee. I chaired that when the Republicans were in the majority. He chairs it now that the Democrats are in the majority. We have very few differences. I respect his judgment. He is committed to serving his country. We have produced a bill that I think, all in all, is a good piece of legislation that will actually strengthen our Department of Defense, the ability of our men and women in uniform to serve their country, and take better care of them. So that is a good thing. But now we get the bill on the floor, and I guess that group I have been referring to in recent weeks as ``masters of the universe''-- somebody up there, up high--decides that this is the time we are supposed to have fights, and we are supposed to utilize this opportunity to push and push and push on various different areas. Now, of course, it is legitimate to debate our commitment and strategy in Iraq at this time. But I think what Senator McCain is telling us is this, that this bill fundamentally is a bill to deal with and strengthen our military, that we just had debates in April and May and great detail about our Iraq policy, and we decided on that policy. We all know that we will expect a report from General Petraeus in September. This is not the time to alter the policy we established about 2 months ago. I agree with Senator McCain about that. We can talk about it. We can do those things. But is it the right thing to jeopardize this bill over other issues--over the issues relating to Iraq? Let me say a couple of things. The fundamental debate we are having here with regard to our Iraq policy, when you boil it down to basics, is whether to reverse the policy we established in May. That was a decision by an 80-to-14 vote to fund the surge in Iraq, after having voted on it in April. We had another vote back in May, and we funded this operation through the fiscal year, through September 30, if not longer--at least through September 30. And we affirmed and confirmed General Petraeus as the commander of that surge by a 99-to-0 vote. He is a fabulous commander, and he received a bipartisan, unanimous vote in the Senate. That is what we decided, after great debate. Now, what I will say to my colleagues is this: A great nation has to conduct itself as such. We are not able to flip-flop around week after week and change our minds every few weeks based on this or that event. If a serious situation occurs, we can change our mind at any time. But great nations are more akin to great battleships. They do not dart around similar to a speedboat. They set their course and have to justify it carefully before they act. Once they act, they need to stay that course, subject to any changes that occur. So what I would say is this: I am worried we are doing what some political consultants would like to see Democratic leadership do and talk about the war because they think that is politically beneficial. We ought to be talking about those soldiers we have committed out there, placed in harm's way, who are, this very day, walking the streets of Baghdad and Al Anbar Province and Tikrit and Mosul, executing the policies we voted 80 to 14, in May, to send them to do. We voted 99 to 0 to send General Petraeus. At that time, we made clear to him we expected a report in September. I think that is what we are about here, and we ought to be about, that we would go forward--and always subject to our constitutional responsibilities to make any changes that are required--but go forward to allow the general to carry out the surge we told him to carry out. This surge, let me say to my colleagues, has only reached its full effort--what?--2 weeks ago when the last brigade reached Iraq. So we only reached full capacity of that surge a few weeks ago. We know it is difficult now. They said: Well, the bombings are occurring outside Baghdad now. Why is that? Well, it is a given that it is tougher for them in Baghdad, so they have gone outside Baghdad to do bombings. What does that suggest? I would suggest that would lead us to conclude the work in Iraq, in Baghdad itself, has already made progress. Indeed, if the capital city of Iraq, the biggest city, cannot maintain order, it is difficult to see how we can have a political settlement all of us wish to occur. General Petraeus has taken the case to the enemy. He is moving forward aggressively and making military progress. The difficulty--and we all know it--is that the Government of Iraq is not performing at the level it needs to perform. This is a matter we are not able to deny. I know when I traveled to Iraq with Senator Levin--and when I was there more recently with Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska--we raised the importance with the Iraqi people and the Iraqi leaders of having a functioning government. Senator Levin has strongly believed and consistently argued that one way to get them to perform is to threaten to pull out our troops. I have come to believe their failure to perform cannot be altered by threats to pull out troops. I wish it could be. I wish we could do it that way. But it is more difficult than that. So they are struggling, and I do not know whether they can pull this Government together. I certainly hope so. But I will tell you one thing. Progress is being made in a number of different areas militarily. This gives me some hope they can pull this Government together. That is where we are at this point. I do not see any other way to analyze it, honestly, to the American people. That is what I say to them as best I can. I believe our military is performing magnificently. I believe the Government in Iraq continues to have serious problems in effectuating the kind of stability and reconciliation they need to effectuate so we can have a better capability of reducing the troop levels we have in Iraq today. Now, the way this deal went down--and we voted to send General Petraeus there. We talk about making reports back to us. I remember distinctly in the Armed Services Committee, when he was up for confirmation, I asked General Petraeus did he believe we could be successful in Iraq. He said: Yes, sir, I do. General Petraeus had been there when the initial invasion occurred. He commanded the 101st Airborne in Mosul. He came home for, I think, less than a year and went back to take over the training of the Iraqi military. He then came back, wrote the Department of Defense manual on how to defeat an insurgency operation--the very project he executes--and the President has asked him to go back to Iraq to execute a strategy to defeat the insurgency that is going on in that country at this time. So I asked him, would he tell the American people and the Congress truthfully whatever the situation was when he was there? He previously said this was a difficult but not impossible task he was taking on. He said: Senator, you can count on it. I asked Secretary Gates, the Secretary of Defense, at a hearing: Secretary Gates, will you tell the American people if this military effort in Iraq cannot succeed and we ought to do something else? He said: Yes, sir, Senator. I feel that is my responsibility as Secretary of Defense. I will say to you, my colleagues, let's not flip-flop around here every week with another amendment trying to set another strategy, written by a group of us sitting in air-conditioned offices, when we have some of the best military minds this Nation has ever produced, with great depth of experience--by the way, General Petraeus has his Ph.D. from Princeton and was No. 1 in his class at the Command and General Staff College. He is over there right now, and we have it set for him to come back and go through a very deep and serious evaluation of what has happened, where we are, and where we need to go in the future. So it is all right. I know we are going to have people talk about strategy and alteration in our policy. But I think, in truth, it would be more responsible for us to pass this Defense authorization bill, which will make the lives of our military men and women far better, will make our Defense Department more effective, and will give us a better chance of being successful in Iraq. We need to pass this bill. We will be coming back in September, no doubt, for a very serious debate on how we go from here in Iraq. That is where we are, in my opinion. I respectfully disagree with some who see it otherwise, who think they have divine strategy--reading a few newspaper articles, I guess, and talking to a few folks and going to Iraq once or twice; I have been there six times--and trying to come back and formulate a policy. I do not think that is wise right now. I urge our colleagues not to go in that direction. I will take one brief moment to say I respect my colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb. I recognize the goals and the desires reflected in that amendment--his belief that soldiers ought to have guaranteed time of deployments passed by statute by the Congress of the United States. But I do not agree. I think this is a very significant amendment. I believe it is an amendment that alters the traditional power of the President as Commander in Chief. I think it could put us in very difficult circumstances in the future. I urge my colleagues to remember the amendment is not limited to Iraq, it covers any military activities we get involved in, in the future, any war now or series of wars we may find ourselves in, in the future. War is very difficult, indeed. I remember our former colleague, Senator Strom Thurmond, I think at age 40, volunteered to go in the Army. He had to make them take him. He was a sitting judge. He was not required to go. He was deployed to England. I do not know how long he had been in at the time D-Day occurred. He volunteered to go in on a glider behind enemy lines in the nighttime at the time of the D-Day landing to try to protect the soldiers on the beach from counterattacks. I remember asking Strom--former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I will note--I asked: Strom, well, how long did you stay in? Did you stay in until Germany surrendered? He said: Yes, sir, we stayed in until Germany surrendered--there to the day they surrendered. He said: In fact, after Germany surrendered, I was on a train heading across the United States to the Pacific. They were going to send us to Japan when they dropped the bomb on Japan. I wish to say, I do not know what General Eisenhower, General Marshall, General MacArthur would think about a policy that says, in a time of war, Congress is going to decide how long people are deployed. I do not think it is good policy for a lot of reasons. I would express my objection to the amendment. I know it is well intentioned. I say this: The military understands it. The military is determined to reduce deployment times in Iraq. Secretary Gates has made that clear. But had he not been able to extend for 3 months those soldiers he extended, it would have required as much as five new brigades to be sent over there. Some of them would not have had their full time at home that he wanted them to have at home. He thought it was better to do it that way than the other way. I believe, under the circumstances, that was a correct decision. People could debate that, but I think he made the right decision there. So it is better to do it that way. To pass a law, sitting here in air-conditioned offices, that is going to direct how the military deploys its troops in times of war is something I think we should not do. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicholas Greenway and Eugene Lipkin, interns in Senator Warner's office, be granted floor privileges for the period July 10 through August 3, 2007.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we have had an unfortunate event occur. The Senate and House Judiciary Committees have issued subpoenas to the President for internal personal communications with the President's own personal staff and documents related thereto in a matter unrelated to a criminal investigation. A political inquiry is all this is about. Yesterday the President had to assert executive privilege and refuse to produce a very certain, limited number of documents relating to the replacement of U.S. attorneys around the country. I served as a U.S. attorney for 12 years. I know U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. I know U.S. attorneys on a few occasions actually try cases and get involved in cases. I did pretty often. I tried some fairly big cases. Most U.S. attorneys in larger offices preside over the office and career assistant U.S. attorneys and FBI agents and so forth and investigate cases and prosecute them. That is the way it goes. The reality is that they can be removed at any time by the President. It is not a congressional function to determine whether or not a U.S. attorney is removed. The Congress is involved only in the confirmation of U.S. attorneys. The President and Attorney General Gonzales did not handle the recent resignation of 8 U.S. Attorneys very well. I believe they thought they could do it and not really have much of a reason for it, yet say they thought performance was not good. Maybe they simply wanted to replace that attorney with someone else. But U.S. attorneys have friends in law enforcement. They have friends in the local community. They have Senators who recommend them and help them get confirmed. They have clout. It became a big brouhaha. There was a big dispute about it, and various accusations were made. I was present for the hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Frankly, most of the accusations have been proven baseless. But in explaining it all, the Attorney General and some of his staff did not do a good job. They embarrassed the Department, frankly, and fed demands for more and more and more to keep this story alive, to keep this matter going. Now we are at the point where subpoenas have been issued. The committee issued five subpoenas on June 13. Two of the subpoenas were issued to the White House for documents to be produced on or before June 28, 2007. A third subpoena was issued by the House Judiciary Committee to Harriet Miers for both documents and testimony, for a response by July 12. Harriet Miers was a lawyer for the President. She was White House Counsel. The fourth and fifth subpoenas were issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee to Sara Taylor for documents and testimony respectively and called for a response on or before June 28 and testimony for a hearing on July 11. This is an overreach legally. It is an overreach insofar as the traditional comity that should exist between coequal branches of Government. Executive privilege is not a principle that should be lightly dismissed. It is a very real, legitimate principle that our Government has. What would we have next? Would we want to be subpoenaing the law clerks for Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg and Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court to see what those staffers told the judges before they rendered their ruling? What about Senators and our staffs? How about that? This has not been a stonewalling by the administration on the U.S. attorneys issue. The Department of Justice has released or made available for review approximately 8,500 pages of documents. Top officials in the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General himself, the Deputy Attorney General, Paul McNulty, the Attorney General's former chief of staff, and many other officials have testified at public hearings and submitted themselves for on-the-record interviews to answer any questions. The President offered to go even further by providing Congress with additional documents, to make available for interviews the President's former Counsel, Harriet Miers; Karl Rove, his political counselor; Deputy Counsel, Bill Kelly; former Director of Political Affairs, Sara Taylor; Scott Jennings, Special Assistant to the President. All of those would be made available to be inquired of. That was an effort by the executive branch to satisfy the curiosity of the legislative branch and to go as far and even further, maybe, in my view, than required by law. That was a genuine, generous suggestion as to how to handle this conflict between the two branches, our desire to look in there and see everything that went on and pry open the lid and probe and fish a little bit and see what we find and a legitimate right of a President to have a staff that responds to his or her demands and gives the President unvarnished advice, pointing out problems, honestly and openly, without any expectation it is going to be on the front page of the New York Times the next day, for heaven's sake. So I just want to say, I am sorry and disappointed our chairman, Chairman Leahy, has utilized the power the committee gave him to decide whether to issue a subpoena or not, to actually issue subpoenas. So now what has happened? The President said: These subpoenas go too far. Even so, I am not afraid to have my people talk. The President has offered that Harriet Miers come to the Hill and be interviewed by the Judiciary Committee. But in preserving the historic integrity and confidentiality of a President and their own staff, the President does not want to produce confidential communications made to him by his staff. I think it would erode any President's legitimate prerogative, for time immemorial, if Congress were able to do that. I would suggest we in this Senate can understand that. Who of us would want our chief of staff to be hauled in to some committee when there is no suggestion of a criminal offense having occurred and then being cross-examined on everything our chiefs of staff told us? I just met with my chief counsel, Cindy Hayden, and we talked about these issues. She is an excellent lawyer. We have recently met and talked about the immigration bill that the Senate was debating. Maybe the White House, which took a different view than mine on immigration, would like to embarrass me by issuing subpoenas to see if they could find out something in memos or documents or conversations we had about the bill and the flawed legislative process that brought it to the floor. The executive branch has the power of subpoena also. Would our Members over here on the Senate Judiciary Committee be happy if the White House issued subpoenas to find out if any of our Members may have delayed the confirmation process in order to impact the outcome of some case that might be pending before a court of appeals at a given time in a given State? Would we want to have all that happen to us? If these are criminal things, you get to do that. If they are not criminal things, comity, respect between our branches would suggest that any leader have certain rights to have candid, confidential communications with their own staff about matters of great importance to our Nation. The courts have it. Congress has it. The executive branch has it. There is case law that has addressed this type of privilege. Executive privilege is not something that is made up; it is something that is very real. Now, I am not one who would want to come in and predict how cases would come out, but based on the openness the President has shown with regard to providing to the Congress his staff people for interviews, I am not sure there is a legal basis for this. Yes, in the meantime, it will look good politically. Those who issued the subpoenas--and are proud of themselves, knowing the President probably will never be able to accept this and would have to resist and have to object--can accuse him of hiding. They can accuse him of stonewalling. They can say he is in denial, that he will not cooperate with the Congress, that he is operating in secrecy. These baseless accusations will just further fuel the charges people have made about this good man who is trying to serve the country the best he can. I certainly believe that. So here we are. Chairman Leahy issued the subpoenas. Now the President has objected, which he has a perfect right to do. What happens now? There are several options, one of which is to litigate. If that path is chosen, a court will have decide it. It will go to the courts, and there will be an argument whether there is a legitimate evoking of executive privilege. I wish it had not happened. That is all I am saying. We, I believe, have overreached in this instance. I cannot imagine we would want to demand that the President's own lawyer, Harriet Miers, be required to produce every memo she gave to the President and every conversation she had about any matter in the White House unless it amounted, as I said, to some criminal offense, which nobody is suggesting has occurred here. It is just not good policy, and we have to be bigger than short-term politics in this Senate. We have to be bigger than that. I want to say, in my best judgment, we should not have shoved it this far. We have overreached. The President does have a legitimate claim of executive privilege. Over 8,500 documents and e-mails that went from the White House to the Cabinet Department, the Department of Justice, have been produced. It is only those conversations and communications between the President's closest advisers and the President himself which the White House feels should not be produced because of the historical implications of it for Presidents in the future. In this instance, I think the President is within his rights. My best judgment, based on what I know today, is that this is not legitimate under our current law, and it is absolutely not justified under our discretion as Members of Congress. We ought to have more respect for the other branch than to push this request beyond the limits to the point we have today. So, Madam President, I want to be on record to say that I understand why the President would object to making these disclosures of internal communications between the President and his own personal, closest staff, after, of course, having produced communications between he and his staff and the Department of Justice that have been produced and making those staff members available for private inquiry among the leadership of the Congress. I think that was a real strong gesture of openness, but that was promptly rejected because I think some in the Congress--Senate and House--would rather have a fight and try to make a political point than actually get to the truth of those matters. Madam President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.