Mr. President, I call up this amendment to address what has been a chronic and pressing need on the part of our military forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. President, there is an old saying we are all familiar with: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Mr. President, fool me nine times, and it qualifies as an emergency that must be addressed, particularly when the lives and limbs of our military men and women are at stake. Specifically, I refer to the fact that the United States Army has now, on nine consecutive occasions, underestimated the need for up-armored humvees in the theater of Iraq. This has been a matter of some public attention in Newsweek Magazine and elsewhere. It is a chronic need we need to address now.

The figure the Army indicates they currently need--and allegedly have met--would not have been met at all if, last year, we had not taken similar action to do what I am currently requesting. They would have had funding for thousands of fewer vehicles and not met the need that currently they suggest is imperative. The figure they are saying is sufficient today includes--think about this--a range of attrition of 226 vehicles throughout the combat in Iraq. They have only lost 226 up-armored humvees throughout the last 2 years in that theater. This is below the attrition rate of 10 to 15 percent, suggesting strongly that they are erring yet again--for the tenth time.

I ask my colleagues, when it comes to something this important, with a track record of underestimating the need this clear, should we not err on the side of doing more, rather than less, when it comes to protecting the lives and safety of our military men and women?

I note some of my colleagues, who I esteem greatly on the other side of the aisle, will suggest the generals are simply saying we don't have an additional need at this time. Mr. President, that is not what the troops are saying. Do you remember the one brave soldier who brought to the attention of the Secretary of Defense the fact that they were having to resort to what he called ``hillbilly armor'' for their protection? We should not allow this deplorable condition to continue.

I remind my colleagues again, in spite of what the generals are currently saying in a letter circulating, they have been wrong nine consecutive times. The credibility on this issue is not that great. It is also suggested perhaps we should take our resources--and I understand they are scarce--and allocate them instead to have striker vehicles instead of up-armored humvees.

Mr. President, I submit this is a false choice. When it comes to protecting our troops, we should do whatever it takes to get the job done and not leave some exposed to unnecessary harm while choosing instead to protect others. We can afford to do both.

Mr. President, I conclude my comments by saying how much I respect Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens but the track record here is very clear. On nine consecutive occasions, the Army has underestimated the need. The need wouldn't be met today for the number of vehicles suggested in their letter if we had not acted last year. Let us err on the side of doing more rather than less. Let us take this action to protect our troops. It is the very least we can do when they are in harm's way on our behalf.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, myself, and others, I ask we take this action.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.