Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow the majority leader be recognized to speak.

Mr. President, I come to the floor here today to share with my colleagues and my constituents my frustration with the inaction of Congress on its most basic responsibility, to enact bills to make appropriations for the Government for the coming year.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular

Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all

public Money shall be published from time to time.

That is the Constitution of the United States. There is no responsibility more fundamental than the one I

have just read. The American people pay taxes and they expect the Congress to do something with those taxes every year. Part of it they expect to be spent on the operations of Government--for the payments of the Defense Department, for the payments of the Treasury Department, for all things that go on in the Energy Department. All of those functions of Government are put together and handled in appropriations bills that have a committee chairman and a ranking member, and each year, under our system, where it is annual, they are supposed to produce an appropriations bill that goes from House to House and becomes a final product when it has been passed in both Houses and gone to conference between the two Houses and comes out as a final bill, which goes to the President of the United States. That is the format.

There are 13 of those that cause the Government of the United States to function. Can you believe that many publications have scorned Congress? Some have blamed the House of Representatives, some have blamed the Senate, some have blamed the administration for sending an unrealistic budget last February. The blame game doesn't interest this Senator. We all share in this quiet conspiracy to duck fulfilling the most fundamental responsibility that we have and that is to vote on appropriations bills, to confer between the House so they are the same bill, the same package of requirements, requests, expenditures that we ultimately call a bill.

Some media analysts contend that the Senate was afraid to cast votes on appropriations bills, thinking these votes might be used against incumbent Senators in recently held elections. All sorts of reasons emerged that justified laying aside this appropriations bill or that one. Some feared that amendments to the bills might take too long, too much time. Amendments might be painful choices for Senators. Some of the votes might slow down the process and some might show up later in campaign commercials or propaganda.

This Senator has cast more than 12,000 votes, more than almost any other Senator in the Senate history. There are maybe five or six who have cast more. My votes may be characterized by my opponents in a campaign, using commercials and whatever else they would like. They can find almost any vote I have taken over the years I have been here.

I took this job knowing full well I would have to vote to decide, to choose, and that these decisions would absolutely be second-guessed by a whole host of people. So I reject the notion that the Senate saved itself by avoiding so-called hard votes. We had not and we did not take the votes, did we? And look at the results in November. If it were our Republican approach to save ourselves, we lost ourselves.

Now we have the end of a Congress and here sit the appropriations bills unattended, sitting over there on the various clerks' desks. All the work has been done except the final work where they have to come to each House and get approved.

What we will do, for and to the people of the United States, from this day forward is terrible. Since we do not have the bills passed on both sides, we will have a continuing resolution, named for another document where we will pass the Government spending for a period of time and say we will spend, and then we relate it to something. We normally do it for 20 days out of the year. This time we will have a continuing resolution with the bills that have not been passed. That should be used very seldom, this continuing resolution, and it is getting to be like apple pie around here. We use it all the time. Rather than do our work, we do a continuing resolution. We continue it by resolution, equating it most frequently to the work that has been completed by the House, for they have done their work first. Therefore, the Senate has little or no input into what the continuing resolution ultimately says we are going to spend money on.

It used to be that a continuing resolution was not watched very well and it was a way of putting all kinds of things on. That doesn't happen much anymore. So what we are getting out of this as Senators is nothing. We are getting little or no input into the appropriations process. The bills we handle, if we are chairmen or ranking members, are not going to get adopted at any time or even referred to at any time unless we decide, in the next 6 or 7 weeks, to do something together that will change that by reference or by adopting some new bill.

There is much to be done and clearly we are not on the right course at this point. We are not going to pass many of these bills except perhaps a military construction bill, which is no longer a construction bill, but it is a bill for the health and welfare of our soldiers, and for many other things, and it is for building many new things that have to be built here at home for them and, therefore, that Military Construction bill will probably be a must and it will be around, and people will be talking about it and the fact that it has to be done.

From my standpoint, this week, if this 109th Congress slinks into history, as seems to be scheduled, it will have completed work on only two appropriations bills, Defense and Homeland Security, and maybe the one I have just referred to as Military Construction. In place of the completed bills, we will have a continuing resolution through February 15, next year, about the time the President will send us a 2008 final fiscal year budget. We will be getting a new one before we have done anything about the old one. We will be getting a brandnew budget-- imagine--and we will not have done anything about all of those that are sitting on the desks of clerks, waiting to do their part in appropriately spending our money.

Next year, we will look at the remaining 2007 bills, the much anticipated $100 billion Defense supplemental request that we all expect the President to suggest, and all 13 of the 2008 bills.

Does someone think this kind of procedure serves the public interest or some political interest? I believe it serves neither of the two.

For those Senators who are glad to see a continuing resolution because they think it saves money, think again. Not only will this continuing resolution not save money, but it will give reordering of priorities to the 110th Congress. I predict that we will spend more, not less, as a result of the strategy adopted by the Congress this year. The upshot will be that we have both failed to fulfill our constitutional responsibility and have spent more money.

What an outcome.

Who is to blame, then? Not the Senate Appropriations Committee, which reported every single appropriations bill by the end of July, the earliest such bills had been reported in 18 years. Not the subcommittee chairman, of which I am one, who worked to meet the deadlines set by the chairman and ranking member.

Those highly motivated members who wanted a full and open debate on the appropriations bills certainly cannot be blamed, although the outcome of their efforts will probably disappoint them by the middle of next year. Each Senator has the obligation to pursue what he or she believes is the correct policy, using any parliamentary means appropriate. I cannot condemn my colleagues who, for one reason or the other, find the appropriations process objectionable.

Here is what I suggest for the future. Let's vote. Let's report the individual bills, as Chairman Cochran did this year, on time. Then, let's bring the bills up on the floor. If members want to filibuster, that is their privilege. We vote on that. If cloture prevails, we have post cloture debate, and then vote again. Yes, it is time consuming, but it's our job. Let's vote.

Let me close by discussing briefly my own Energy and Water appropriations bill, which has awaited Senate action for almost 5 months now.

It is almost ludicrous that at this time in history, the 109th Congress failed to act on this bill. We read daily about the growing nuclear threat in North Korea; millions of words are written and spoken on the threat of an Iran with a nuclear capability. Six Arab, Sunni nations have now petitioned for a nuclear program through the International Atomic Energy Agency, including Saudi Arabia, contending that they need such programs for domestic energy purposes. Many analysts believe that the Arab nations observe the growing threat of a Shia Iran, with the potential for a nuclear weapon, and want nuclear programs for weapons purposes. We listen to witnesses tell us

of their fears of nuclear terrorism and the failures of the present nonproliferation programs.

For more than two decades now, these subjects have been the focus of much of my work as a Senator. And much of the good work that this Nation has done to address nonproliferation and nuclear terrorism is funded by the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

Yet at this dangerous time, the 109th Congress couldn't find time to take up the Energy and Water appropriations bill. In addition to hundreds of millions, almost billions of dollars for disposing of weapons grade nuclear material, and funding to try to stop nuclear material from shipment to this Nation, the bill funded alternative energy sources. It funds weatherization grants for Americans. It funds a brand new approach to handling nuclear waste here and abroad.

Let me close by discussing several important items in the bill, which languishes.

First, in the area of nuclear nonproliferation, the administration has given careful thought to how to handle the growing Iran and North Korea nuclear threat. Yet under the strategy adopted by this Congress on my bill, the Nonproliferation and International Security Account will be $53 million less than the House passed bill and the Senate committee-reported bill recommend. Think about that, short-changing that nonproliferation account because we were afraid to vote.

Second, and even more serious, one of the largest non-proliferation projects ever will be delayed. The Fissile Materials Disposition program, located in South Carolina, I add for the benefit of those two Senators, is known by the short hand of MOX. That program now has stopped construction, because the House passed bill eliminated all funding. And, since we have no Senate-passed bill, we cannot even negotiate levels on the continuing resolution. Think about this: the United States and Russia have spent the last 10 years negotiating a deal to eliminate 34 tons of plutonium from the nations' stockpiles and now the future of this effort is in limbo because Congress couldn't find the time to do its job.

As chairman of the Energy and Water subcommittee I was excited about the new initiatives proposed by the President including energy independence and to increase funding for science research in the Fiscal Year '07 request.

The Fiscal Year '07 budget took bold steps and made significant investment in nuclear power and alternative energy. Unfortunately, enactment of a CR will delay our investment in to alternative energy and maintain our increasing level of dependence on foreign energy sources.

Building on Energy Policy Act passed in 2005, the President supported increased funding for the research on cellulosic biomass, solar, hydrogen and advanced battery research. The Senate also restored funding geothermal development a renewable resources in the west with great potential.

The Senate Energy and Water bill supported the implementation of a loan guarantee program that was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This is an innovative financial solution, which would not cost the Federal Government a dime in appropriated funding.

The backing by the Federal Government supports the commercial deployment of first-of-a-kind energy production technology. Without the language in the Senate bill, this program will not go forward and our Nation will not get closer to energy independence.

The Senate Energy and Water bill also fully funds the President's request for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. Our future economic growth and security will require our schools to train the next generation of scientists and engineers. We haven't done enough and are losing ground in scientific research. This budget will reverse that trend with investments in basic scientific.

The Senate fully funds the President's request for the Office of Science.

The Senate bill also provides important funding to support the licensing of a new nuclear power reactor that will met our growing energy demand without increasing greenhouse gases.

The bill closes the funding shortfall for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to hire and train additional technical staff that will be needed to review the new license applications being developed by utilities. These priorities will not be recognized with continued delays with a CR.

This year the President outlined his plans for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. This program invests makes a large investment in addressing spent fuel stored at reactors all across the country by recycling. As Yucca Mountain continues to face delays, the Senate bill supports the administration's efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle commercial spent fuel.

I understand the challenges the leadership of Congress faces. Any of us who have served a chairman of the Budget Committee certainly understand the cross-currents in this Chamber. But, putting aside hard choices almost never leads to good results. We should remain in session this month until we fund the 2007 bills. After all, that's our job.

Since it appears there are no Senators wishing to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak on an unrelated subject for 10 minutes.

And that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina be the Senator who follows.

Mr. President, just last week the price of natural gas was at $7.79 per million Btu's. That is nearly double the price it was 2 months ago. In October, natural gas was selling for $4.01 on the spot market. This kind of price instability it brings harms consumers, harms businesses, is devastating to manufacturers, and is a threat to our economy.

On August 1, 71 Senators in this Chamber cast what I consider one of the most important bipartisan votes of the year. We voted for the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, a bill that will open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf

of Mexico for oil and gas exploration. The exploration could bring an estimated 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to market over the next several years.

That oil and that gas will be American. It will be extracted from American territorial waters, will be extracted by American companies and American workers, and will be on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and will also share the royalties with the adjoining States, which has not been done before, sharing in a different way where they get much more of the proceeds.

That is a precedent which we have never accomplished before and which will do us good as we look around our other States to see if we can't do more like this effort.

The support for this bill came from my colleagues from the Northwest, the Southeast, and the Southwest, from the Northeast and the Midwest, from both coasts, from areas in between, and from both parties. We all acted to stem the rising tide of energy prices--something good for our country.

Those who voted for it and helped us with it know that the prices continue to rise for natural gas in our homes and our businesses, and we are awaiting the passage of this bill to stabilize prices for the next few years as this fountain full of natural gas descends upon the United States as a result of this new proposal and proposition in the Gulf of Mexico between our sovereign States and the U.S. Government to proceed with drilling. We cast that vote for families worried about high costs of energy. We cast that vote for American businesses, large and small, which have been hit hard by rising energy costs. We cast that vote for manufacturers who have been forced to shut down hundreds of U.S. plants in the last several years and for millions of American workers who lost their jobs when their plants closed. We heard the stories of all of these in our Energy Committee as we proceeded on this bill.

Occupying the chair is the distinguished new Senator from Florida. He remembers this testimony and these facts, and he anxiously waits, as I do as chairman and he as an active Member, for the House to take up this bill and pass it. They have a few alternatives. They can lose the bill and drop it and let it become dead; yes, indeed. But that seems to me to be the worst option of all. They also can pass it just like we sent it to them, and they will have a completed bill, and nothing further. They can affix it to any bill they choose to pass over there-- the tax extenders--and send it to us, and, of course, if that is the case, we will have to do further work on it as it gets here. But that will be the rule as it applies to a bill which is not exactly the same as the one we sent them.

So we cast our votes, as I said, in the manner I have described.

Natural gas prices climbed 400 percent from 2002 to 2005. In that time, the chemical manufacturing industry alone closed 70 plants in these United States and plans to close 40 more, largely because of skyrocketing prices of natural gas. We joined together, Republicans and Democrats, to tackle that problem, and we passed, by strong bipartisan vote, a bill that is as important a step toward tackling our energy challenges as we have around us anywhere in either body, a small but meaningful step toward reducing our reliance upon foreign oil.

This week I hope, and I am confident, that the House will take up our bill. I anticipate equally strong bipartisan support from the House. This legislation is critically important for our consumers and our economy, for housewives and homes, and as we go down the line, we know natural gas is the life of America, and we will add a very significant inventory to America's large inventory, and it will be American, it will not be imported.

The legislation is critically important. The oil resources in this region are impressive, but vast reserves of natural gas are the real bonanza. We believe there is natural gas in lease sale 181 and lease sale 181 south to heat 6 million homes for 15 years--6 million homes for 15 years. Largely because of these gas services, the Wall Street Journal has called this bill an ``easy victory'' for the U.S. economy. On the other side of the political spectrum, the New York Times wrote: ``This bill meets an immediate need and is a reason to drill in the gulf.'' How can you get more than those two ends of the spectrum agreeing and 71 Senators from both sides of the aisle voting for it?

Now I cry out today to the House: Don't go out of session without passing the bill I have just described to you which awaits action from you. It is simple action: just an ``aye'' vote for a simple majority, and that is it. It will be done. This rather gigantic resource will then become available. It is in America, sitting there waiting for somebody to use it. It will be usable with that vote.

As I just told my colleagues, for purposes of an explanation and elaboration, 6 million homes--6 million homes--will have their gas for their full season for 15 years just from what we are going to do there. What an astounding achievement if we will just complete the work by having a vote in the House.

I was saddened to read that we continue to lose businesses because natural gas prices are too high. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 3.1 million high-wage manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000, largely due to inadequate supplies of natural gas. This week, the House can join us in doing something about that, and I urge they do whichever they see as the best way to pass it. If they think it is best to do it freestanding and send it to us as we sent it to them, I wish them the best. If they choose to put it on the tax bill, I hope it will not just make it more difficult and cause the bill to be lost in the transit to the Senate, which appears simple but becomes cumbersome, at least once it hits the House and hits the Senate. It is nice and easy just coming over as it is walked over, but it is very cumbersome once it gets here. That is what would happen. It would then be discussed and perhaps debated, and it would have to have a vote. That is the second approach and far less desirable.

But the House can see the writing on the wall--do it now or perhaps never do it. What a shame. Do it now and you get the benefits I have indicated or, believe it or not, it could be that you won't get it ever. That is just not a good way to leave for this Christmas, as I see it, and I hope it isn't.

I thank the Senate for permitting me to speak today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Dr. Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense.

The position of Secretary of Defense has always been one of the most important Cabinet positions in our country. Never has that importance been more clear than now, as we must decide on a path forward in the global war on terror, including Iraq.

I share my colleagues' concerns about the deteriorating conditions in Iraq. We must carefully assess the current situation in that country as well as our future involvement in Iraq. I am hopeful that Dr. Gates will help us accomplish these goals. He has experience with the current situation in Iraq as a former member of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. As part of that group, he has traveled to Iraq and met with Iraqi leaders and U.S. military commanders. I am optimistic that he will use this experience and knowledge to help chart a course in Iraq that results in the stabilization of that country.

I also hope that as a former member of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, Dr. Gates will carefully review and analyze the Iraq Study Group's report, which was released this morning. I believe that report makes some very good recommendations and can serve as a vehicle for some changes relating to our policy in Iraq. I look forward to discussing those recommendations further in this Chamber.

The report recommends ``new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.'' Renewed diplomatic and political efforts in the region make sense so that we can work with Iraqis to stabilize their country in the spirit of reconciliation. As the Baker-Hamilton report points out, ``if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation, Iraqis will have an opportunity for a better future, terrorism will be dealt a blow, stability will be enhanced in an important part of the world, and America's credibility, interests and values will be protected.'' In my mind, these have always been our goals in Iraq, and I look forward to working with Dr. Gates and my colleagues to accomplish those goals in a responsible way.

There are other recommendations in the report that are equally important. One such recommendation is that ``[t]he primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army . . .'' While I have never supported setting an artificial timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, I believe the Iraqi Government must take responsibility for their country. As such this recommendation regarding our troops' future role in Iraq makes sense, and I will work with Dr. Gates on this recommendation.

One other recommendation that I want to briefly reference is that ``the United States should provide additional political, economic and military support for Afghanistan . . .'' The global war on terror is a multifront war, and we must continue to focus on each of those fronts. I hope Dr. Gates will use his knowledge and experience to help Congress and the President make decisions about the full global war on terror, including operations in Afghanistan. Our work in Afghanistan is important, and I hope Dr. Gates will help us ensure that we do not lose sight of our near- and long-term goals in the overall global war on terror.

Dr. Gates has a long record of service in the area of national security, which I believe will serve him well as Secretary of Defense. He has 26 years of national security experience, including serving as an intelligence adviser to six different Presidents. He has worked at both the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, and the National Security Council, including serving as the Director of the CIA.

Dr. Gates also has a distinguished career in public service. That service began almost 40 years ago when he was commissioned as an officer in the Air Force in 1967. He has received the Presidential Citizens Medal and the National Security Medal, as well as two National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medals and three Distinguished Intelligence Medals.

Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I support the nomination of Dr. Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. I look forward to working with him in the coming years on issues relating to Iraq, the entire global war on terror, and other issues important to our country's defense.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for Dr. Robert Gates to be the next Secretary of Defense. Dr. Gates is poised to take an extraordinarily difficult job at one of the most dangerous times in U.S. history. He will face a number of pressing problems. Clearly, the most pressing problem facing Dr. Gates is determining the next step of U.S. operations in Iraq.

Today the Iraq Study Group released its report. It begins:

The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating [and]

there is no path that can guarantee success.

The study group makes a series of recommendations that are strikingly similar to the Levin-Reed amendment that was offered last June. These recommendations include engaging Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, encouraging the Iraqi Government to increase their efforts to bring security to their people, reconciliation and governance reforms to their nation, and the transition of the mission of our troops from combat operations to training; also, the recommendation that there be a complete redeployment of most of these combat forces by the beginning of 2008.

These recommendations are realistic but they are also very difficult and, I presume, not well liked--at least initially--by this administration. Evaluating and implementing these recommendations will be the daunting but necessary task of Dr. Gates.

Dr. Gates also needs to focus his attention on Afghanistan, the initial and proper focus on the war on terror. Reports make it increasingly clear that we are losing ground. The Taliban has regrouped and rearmed. This spring, they mounted the toughest resistance since 2001. Suicide attacks, which were once unknown in Afghanistan, have more than doubled this year. Lieutenant General Eikenberry, formerly the commanding general of Combined Forces Command Afghanistan, believes the fiercest fighting yet will be next spring.

NATO'S International Security Assistance Force has assumed control of forces in Afghanistan, but this force is only at 85 percent strength. Almost 5 years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, only half of the money pledged by the international community to rebuild Afghanistan has been delivered and spent. Sixty percent of the country is still without electricity, 80 percent without potable water, and the unemployment rate is 40 percent. Without viable alternatives, residents of Afghanistan return to what ensures they will survive and, unfortunately, in many cases, that is growing poppies.

Last week, the U.N. and World Bank released a report stating that poppy cultivation increased 59 percent and opium production by 49 percent over the last year. It concludes that international efforts to combat opium production, which includes $400 million in U.S. counternarcotics funding, have failed. Dr. Gates will have to pay immediate attention to these issues in Afghanistan, a linchpin in our war against terror.

One of the unintended consequences of U.S. operations in Iraq is the enhanced strategic position of Iran. With the election of Iranian President Ahmadinezhad, the nation has become increasingly belligerent to the United States and Israel, a key ally of the United States. The Iranians continue to press for what they describe as a nonmilitary nuclear program. Despite the threat of international sanctions, they are developing their ability to enrich uranium, a necessary step for both a civilian nuclear program and a military weapon. The fear, which I believe is justified, is that with access to enriched uranium in the context of a nuclear power program, the Iranians would be unable or unwilling to avoid the temptation to use this material to construct a nuclear device.

Then there is North Korea, the actions of which have also become increasingly belligerent over the last 2 years. They have walked away from the agreed upon framework, ejected international inspectors, and now likely have enough plutonium to build 10 nuclear weapons. On the 4th of July they provocatively tested a long-range missile. The test was a failure, but it underscored their determination to challenge the international community. Finally, on October 9, they tested a nuclear device.

I argue that Iranian and North Korean nuclear aspirations raise the most serious strategic issues we face today. If these countries are not checked, then there is a significant probability of a regional arms race.

All of these international engagements, all of these international challenges, are creating enormous strains on our military, particularly our ground forces. Recent studies have shown that two-thirds of our Active-Duty Army and more than two-thirds of the National Guard are rated as ``nondeployable'' ``noncombat ready'' principally because of equipment shortages. This is a shocking and scandalous record.

This administration has allowed two-thirds of our Army forces to essentially be denied the equipment--in some cases, the personnel--to be fully represented for combat. Virtually every active brigade not currently deployed is not prepared to meet its mission if called upon.

One of the reasons these brigades are not ready is because of equipment shortages. Over a year ago, the Army estimated that in order to reset equipment being used in theaters of operation, it will require approximately $12 billion in funding every year of ongoing operations until 2 years after operations cease in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marines have been slowly coming back from a $16 billion reset, but they still need $3 billion to draw even and will still incur annual operating costs.

Besides equipment, the Army and Marines must worry about their personnel. The present Active-Duty Army end strength is approximately 504,000. About 400,000 soldiers have done one tour of combat duty, and a third have deployed twice. In order to meet recruiting goals, the Army has increased the maximum age for enlistment and lowered the physical, academic, and ethical standards. To meet retention goals, the Army has implemented stop loss measures and offered increasingly large reenlistment bonuses. There are presently 184,952 Active and Reserve Marines on duty. Over the past 4 years, 169,558 have been deployed, a significant number of Active and Reserve Marines. This operational tempo simply cannot be sustained. Again, Dr. Gates will have to address this issue or risk the future health of the Army and Marine Corps.

Dr. Gates also faces extraordinary budget challenges. The fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act was $366 billion, the largest Defense bill in history. Still, it is not enough. The Army's share of the fiscal year 2007 budget was $98.2 billion. Secretary Rumsfeld set the Army's fiscal year 2008 budget at $114 billion, an increase but insufficient. In response, Army Chief of Staff GEN Peter Schoomaker took the unprecedented step of refusing to submit the 2008 budget plan by the August 15 deadline. General Schoomaker has determined in fiscal year 2008 the Army needs $138.8 billion just to continue to operate. Again, it is an unprecedented step in which a Chief of Staff, a uniformed officer, would not submit his budget to the Secretary of Defense.

The Navy, which is not significantly involved in the Iraqi and Afghanistan theaters, is still key to our foreign presence around the world. Today's Navy fleet numbers 278 ships. The Chief of Naval Operations' 5-year shipbuilding plan calls for new ship construction with necessary funding of $14.1 billion beginning in fiscal year 2008 and rising to $19.1 billion in fiscal year 2012. This is a huge number, but without this critical funding our fleet will be in jeopardy. And, again, the Secretary of Defense has to respond to this request by the Chief of Naval Operations.

All of this is in the context of the regular budget. But as we all know, we have been funding operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq through supplementals. To date, $495 billion has been appropriated through these supplementals for our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Press reports indicate that the Pentagon is preparing a new supplemental. The request is in the range of $127 to $150 billion just for an additional year of operations in these theaters of war.

There are several problems with these supplementals. They contribute directly to our Nation's deficit, which is $248 trillion. They do not allow the military to effectively and efficiently plan for the maintenance of troops, equipment, and operations because none of this spending can be counted upon in terms of the exact number and the timing of the passage of the supplemental. The supplementals, as large as they are, still are insufficient. The Army, even with supplementals, is citing billions of dollars in shortfalls, particularly with respect to equipment resets. They will not last forever, since I can anticipate, we all can anticipate, the reaction of the American public to another request for $100 billion or more.

Finally, when the supplementals do cease, either totally or in significant numbers of dollars, the Army and Marine Corps will still have troops and equipment in the field, with no funding. They will face a precipice, if you will: They still have a responsibility, they still have the personnel, they still have the equipment, but where is the funding? These are extraordinary problems that Dr. Gates is facing, most of them a direct result of poor decisions made by the administration and the Department of Defense.

Most of these issues were raised with Dr. Gates in yesterday's confirmation hearing. Although there were some issues that Dr. Gates did not yet have in-depth knowledge of, he was frank in his responses and open to the ideas and open to the advice of all who asked him questions.

For months, I and many of my colleagues have called for a change in our course in Iraq and in the rest of our foreign policy. I believe that Dr. Gates is a signal of that change. I do not believe that he is invested in the decisions, many of them bad, that have been made in the Department of Defense over the last 5 years. I also believe he will have a completely different management style from Secretary Rumsfeld, allowing civilians and military personnel to speak more freely. I believe these differences will allow honest, albeit difficult, discussions to take place and changes to be made.

I have had the opportunity to get to know Dr. Gates over the past 5 years. I have found that he is a thoughtful, experienced, and realistic voice on foreign policy. He is a good listener, and I think he will draw on a cross-section of views when making decisions. I commend him for leaving private life and a job he clearly loved to take on a very public job that will be thanklessly demanding.

Perhaps the most difficult task that Dr. Gates faces is bringing unvarnished reports of bad news to a President and inner circle who do not like to hear such things. However, I believe that Dr. Gates has the stature and the wherewithal and the will to do what needs to be done.

The months ahead are going to be difficult, not only for Bob Gates but also for our military. However, I have confidence that Dr. Gates will be an able leader and, therefore, I will support his nomination and wish him well in a very daunting task.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Florida has put his finger on a critical issue, perhaps the most critical. I believe Dr. Gates will give good, sound advice. He will listen. But the real question is, Will that advice be accepted by the President? And will the President be able to redefine policy in such a way that is realistic and achievable? And also, will he be able to articulate this policy and rally the support of the American public as we go forward-- and not only the American public but the international community? But my sense, my hope is that Dr. Gates will take that first important step of speaking truth to power, even though it is unpopular truth.

I have always been impressed by the fact that Bob Gates evaluates the quality of the idea, not just the source of the idea. I got to know Bob Gates in that same context of bipartisan foreign policy deliberation at the Aspen Strategy Group with a group of individuals. Some of our colleagues were there, including Senator Feinstein and others. But it is chaired

by Brent Scowcroft, who was the National Security Adviser for President George Herbert Walker Bush, and cochaired by Joe Nye, who was in the Clinton administration.

Bob Gates is someone who brings to the foreign policy arena this sense of reaching out to both sides. In fact, as he pointed out yesterday--and I think the Senator heard--one of the tasks he sees that he must perform is to create a bipartisan consensus to sustain the long war against terror beyond Iraq, beyond the current dilemmas we are facing. He will do that by reaching out, by listening, again, ultimately, by evaluating the ideas, not simply the source of those ideas.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak on the nomination of Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense. It is my honor to serve under Chairman John Warner on the Senate Armed Services Committee. We are particularly proud of the fact that 1 out of every 10 persons in uniform in this country, or serving around the world, calls Texas home. So we are very proud of the military. We are pro-military. We believe in doing everything we can to support our men and women in uniform and particularly their families.

So it is with great joy that I say the President has chosen someone who currently serves as President of Texas A&M University to be the next Secretary of Defense. Even though Bob Gates is from Kansas originally, he has most recently become a Texan--at least we claim him because he has been living in College Station as President of Texas A&M these last few years.

I particularly commend the President for his selection and Mr. Gates for answering the call, once again, to public service. He is not a new face in this town. Having served as Director of the CIA, having served on the National Security Council, he has a distinguished record of public service. He has written extensively on military intelligence and matters of diplomacy.

My meetings with Dr. Gates, preliminary to the hearings we had this week on the Armed Services Committee, gave me great confidence that he is of the temperament and ability to lead the Department of Defense in what has to be the second most difficult job in Washington, DC; that is, to deal with an agency with the budget of about a half-trillion dollars a year and to perform what is the most important priority of the Federal Government: provide safety and security to the American people. That is a responsibility not only here at home, obviously, but literally all around the world.

On the matter of Iraq, which was the subject matter of most of the questions and comments of the committee during Dr. Gates' confirmation hearing, I think he understands the challenges that face us in Iraq and why it is that we must succeed. As he told me, and as he testified at the hearing, a failure in Iraq would lead to increased activity by al- Qaida, as well as regional instability in the Middle East. It could even lead to a regional--I think he used the term ``conflagration,'' where additional States that are not currently involved in the conflict in Iraq could find their interests at stake and could resort to military force. First, dealing with al-Qaida, and the result of a failed state in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left there in 1989, ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban and gave Osama bin Laden a place to plot, plan, train, and then export terrorist attacks around the world, including in Washington, DC, and New York City on September 11. Beyond the terrorist threat, it is also clear that Iran has aspirations that will very much put the future of Iraq in jeopardy and our own safety in America as well.

As is widely known, Iran is primarily a Shia majority population. Iraq is composed of roughly three ethnic divisions--Kurds, Shia, and Sunni--and, clearly, Iran is taking advantage of the instability in Iraq to consolidate its position with the Shia in the south, which happens to be an oil-rich region of that nation. But, in effect, if our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would leave a failed state and leave opportunities for Iranian hegemony, it would create further de facto partitions of Iraq which could perhaps cause the Saudis, as some leaders have suggested, to have to go into Iraq to defend the Sunni minority against ethnic cleansing by the Shia majority, perhaps in combination with Iran, and it would create an opportunity, perhaps, for the Kurds to create, in effect, a separate state in northern Iraq which would cause Turkey a lot of concerns, as has been frequently expressed.

I am pleased that Dr. Gates understands the seriousness of this challenge that confronts our Nation. This is one that is certainly bigger than any election or any political party because, as I said at the outset, it represents the single most solemn responsibility those of us who serve in the Federal Government have, and that is to provide for the safety and security of our own people at home.

Today, as everyone knows, the Iraq Study Group issued its report, and I am hopeful we can work together in this body with a new course in Iraq, working with the White House. Clearly, this is a job for the Commander in Chief. He has expressed a willingness to work with this bipartisan Iraq Study Group and work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to achieve victory in Iraq.

I hope Robert Gates' confirmation, his manner and temperament, one that earned him the support of a unanimous vote on the Armed Services Committee, will serve him well as he works on behalf of the President and the executive branch to deal with what is certainly the most significant challenge of our time.

I do want to, however, point out a couple of items in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report because, obviously, there is a lot of public interest in it. This volume is 142 pages, and not many people have read every single page in it. So we have a number of people highlighting different portions of this 142-page document, perhaps a point they want to emphasize. I have a couple of points I want to emphasize because I think they are entirely consistent with what Dr. Gates has said during his confirmation hearing, and these points should be made clear.

On page 66 of the Iraq Study Group report--sometimes called the Baker-Hamilton commission report--the study group says this:

The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is a key topic of

interest in a national reconciliation dialog.

And this is the point I want to emphasize. They go on to say:

The point is not for the United States to set timetables or

deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose . . .

I think it is important to make the point that the Baker-Hamilton study group, the Iraq Study Group, opposes timetables or deadlines for withdrawal.

They go on to say:

The point is for the United States and Iraq to make clear

their shared interest in the orderly departure of U.S.

forces. As Iraqi forces take on the security mission, a

successful national reconciliation dialog will advance that

departure date.

I think what the Baker-Hamilton commission is saying is that withdrawals ought not to be based upon an arbitrary timetable, in effect, based on domestic political considerations but, rather, ought to be based upon security considerations--how can we best provide for the Iraqi people to be able to stand on their own to defend themselves and to allow the political process in Iraq to go forward where people can trade ballots and votes for bombs and bullets.

One other point I wish to raise. I am glad to see the Senator from South Carolina on the floor because there is a point that I know he agrees with and certainly one I think Senator McCain and others have advocated which I happen to believe is an option the President ought to consider at the top of his list in terms of the course forward in Iraq.

We have heard the study by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, at the Pentagon summarized into three options. I believe this was done by a newspaper or perhaps within the Pentagon itself. They summarized for the course forward to go big, go long, or go home.

Clearly, one can tell from my comments that I believe we all want our troops to come home. We are unified and of a single mind on that point. The question is, based on what criteria? Is it based on politics in the Congress or is it based on security, our long-term security, not just the Iraqis' but our security at home, lest Iraq become a failed state and a launching pad for future terrorist attacks.

The alternative ``go long,'' I believe, was explained as reducing the size of our forces in Iraq but basically making a multiyear commitment, a long-term commitment to have our troops there; frankly, an alternative that I don't think holds out much hope for success.

The American people are clearly anxious to see the situation in Iraq be stabilized, to see some improvement, and I think that brings us to the last choice that has been mentioned as a result of these Pentagon discussions: Go big. Let me explain what I mean.

I mean we need to surge American troops into the capital city of Baghdad for a temporary period of time--not a long-term or open-ended engagement--to provide the ability to back up the Iraqis to do what we need to do to clear, to hold, and then to build on that effort in Baghdad, to demonstrate not only that we can provide the security backing up the Iraqi forces, but also to create the basic security conditions that are necessary for the Iraqis to have that national reconciliation process to work out their differences the best they can, and then to provide for their own defense so we can bring our troops home.

But I want to make sure--because this is an important point--some, I believe, have represented this Iraq Study Group Report as an endorsement of a withdrawal of troops not based on security conditions, and I say this report does not endorse that approach, as I indicated.

With regard to the surging of troops in Baghdad on a temporary basis, as advocated by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Arizona, and one that I find is the only really viable alternative we have in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group says this on page 73:

We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or

surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to

speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S.

commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be

effective.

My hope is the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, having this worthwhile report which makes clear that every option has been looked at without regard to ideology or partisan politics, that the report of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, consulting with the leadership at the Pentagon, together with even Secretary Rumsfeld's memo that was recently printed, a classified memo of all the alternatives that was recently printed in the newspaper, that the President has all of these various options available to him to go forward in Iraq.

I think Secretary-to-be Gates was correct yesterday when he said there are not any secret options. Basically, we know what the choices are with this report and the other reports that have come out. Simply stated, there is going to be a time for choosing. That choice and the consequences of that choice are very important because, clearly, what we are doing now is not working in Iraq and, clearly, there are dangers in terms of terrorist activity, in terms of Iranian ambitions, a country that is attempting to build, in defiance of the civilized world, a nuclear weapon.

There are tremendous risks and consequences of not getting this done right, and the American people deserve to know not only what the risk is, what the threat is, and the consequences of failing to live up to this challenge, but that we are doing everything we can in a bipartisan fashion as a nation, looking to the best minds and the best experience this Nation has to offer, to come up with a plan or an assortment of choices and then to give the President the opportunity to make the very best decision he can as Commander in Chief, a position conferred upon him by the Constitution, to lead this course change in Iraq so we do not have a failed state which would further endanger not only that region, but would endanger us at home.

In conclusion, those who think America can simply pull the covers over its head and the problem will go away or they simply think we can withdraw our troops--even in a precipitous fashion--and there will be no consequence to it, I cite the comments of GEN John Abizaid, the head of Central Command, who acknowledged that, yes, we could bring our troops home before security is established in Iraq, but the enemy would follow us here.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to express my support for the nomination of Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense and to use this occasion to comment about the proposed changes in policy of the United States in the conduct of the war in Iraq.

When Robert Gates was nominated to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1987 and I was serving on the Intelligence Committee at that time, concerns were expressed, including mine, that Mr. Gates had not been forthright in the preparation of the testimony of then-CIA Director Casey in disclosures about what happened in the Iran-Contra affair. Mr. Gates withdrew as a nominee for CIA Director at that time. However, he was again nominated in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, and at that time I supported his nomination, thinking that whatever mistakes Mr. Gates had made in the past, he had learned from those mistakes.

President George W. Bush has now nominated Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense. I believe he is well qualified to undertake this position. He has testified before the Armed Services Committee that he does not intend to be a bump on a log, has asserted his

independence, told me in a meeting which we had last week on November 30th that he would bring a fresh pair of eyes to the situation and would be open to change. There is no doubt that change is in the wind, considering the memorandum which has surfaced, written by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the day before the election, and from comments made by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and comments made by the President himself. It is my view that had we known Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, we would not have gone into Iraq. Once we had made the decision to go into Iraq, I think it not advisable to withdraw and leave Iraq in a condition of instability. But the situation there cannot go on forever, interminably, without some limitation and without change of policy because, as Robert Gates put it, we are not winning there and the situation is not improving there. So there has to be some change. Precisely what that change should be is a matter yet to be resolved, and yet to be considered. But a long list of alternatives has been proposed in a number of quarters.

Today, the commission, led jointly by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, has issued a report calling for some very fundamental changes. The Rumsfeld memorandum outlines a number of alternatives.

One of the important recommendations which was made by the Baker- Hamilton commission is that there has to be involvement by other nations in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, with all of its wealth, maintaining a hands-off position, and they ought to be helping to resolve the problems there. The Baker-Hamilton commission has further recommended that the United States engage in negotiations with both Iran and Syria perhaps on a multilateral basis.

My own view, which I expressed in an extended floor statement last June, is that the United States ought to negotiate directly with Iran. I also believe we ought to negotiate directly with Syria. In my June statement I also broadened to consideration of direct negotiations with North Korea. As I said at that time and reiterate, as has been pointed out, we need to keep our friends close and our enemies closer; that if we would undertake a dialog showing respect, showing courtesy to our opponents--we do not have to agree with them--I think that diplomacy and dialog have an excellent opportunity to lead to a solution; and, certainly as a matter of first impression, it ought to be what is undertaken.

It is my hope the President will move in the direction cited by the Baker-Hamilton commission and will go even further and engage in direct negotiations with Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

In October, I publicly urged that changes should be made promptly and not wait until after the election because we were sustaining so many casualties on an ongoing basis.

On October 22, during an interview with CNN, I was asked how much time does the Iraqi Prime Minister have to get tough to deal with the death squads and the militias before the United States has to reassess its strategy. I replied that I would say the time is already past.

I was encouraged by a lead story in the New York Times that day that the administration was considering some timetables. President Bush said in his Saturday address the day before that he was prepared to be flexible to make adjustments, if necessary, to be victorious. I said then that I don't believe a shift in tactics ought to wait until after the election; that there are too many casualties; and that if we had a better course, we should adopt it sooner rather than later.

When Senator Warner came back from a trip to Iraq several weeks before the election and was quoted to the effect that things were going sideways, I called him and suggested to Senator Warner and to other of my colleagues that it might be useful and appropriate to have a joint statement to the President as to the views that we got from our travels to our States and from our travels generally. It was apparent to me weeks before the election--really months before the election--that there was an ongoing descending pattern in which the American people were not in support of United States policy in conducting the war in Iraq. And the public opinion polls cited in my formal statement, which I will introduce into the Record, have shown that. The attitude of the troops in the field--again the specifics of my formal statement had shown that. It was my view that the will of the American people would be expressed at the election, and in no uncertain terms repudiating what the United States was doing in Iraq. And, of course, that did prove to be the case.

I had been concerned back in 2002 before the vote was taken on the resolution for the use of force as to what the United States was prepared to do once Saddam Hussein was toppled. What were the specifics on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction; what will be the costs in terms of casualties; and what will happen? I was speaking in 2002 about the conflicts among the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds.

Now we have a situation where it is up to the President to make the decision as to what will be done specifically; and that is his role as Commander in Chief. But the Congress also has a very definite, a very precise, and a very important role as we undertake the appropriations process.

From time to time there are comments by Members on a wide variety of subjects that funding should be cut off from executive operations in order to carry out Congress' will. That is done in the appropriations bill. When a Secretary of a given department is about to undertake something which the Members of Congress do not like, we provide that no funds appropriated in the bill shall be used to carry out a specific function. There has been a suggestion that funding ought to be cut off for the activities in Iraq. Certainly we would not cut off funding to leave our troops in harm's way, without adequate resources to carry out their mission. However, there may develop a congressional consensus which would reflect the will of the American people that there needs to be something done in Iraq, perhaps even staged withdrawals. Cutting down funding in stages to effectuate such staged withdrawals could accomplish congressional objectives and not leave our troops exposed, with sufficient planning in advance.

In light of the public opposition to the way we are conducting the war in Iraq, and very significant agreement among Members with that demonstrated public response, there remains the possibility that Congress could act with respect to the appropriations function to effectuate changes. That is certainly a course which I would not like to see happen.

It would be vastly preferable if, as a result of what has happened, including the Baker-Hamilton commission report and what Secretary Rumsfeld has said and the new approach of Secretary-to-be Gates--I think he will be confirmed later this afternoon--that the President will make a sufficient change in policy which will lead us in a better path.

Certainly the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq has two major problems--at least two major problems. First, it incites the insurgents to attack U.S. troops; second, it allows the Iraqis to continue to rely upon the United States to provide a defense and to provide military protection. They do not have the motivation to increase their police force and their military to handle the jobs themselves. The public opinion polls cited in my prepared statement are shocking in that the people in Iraq approve of the attacks against U.S. soldiers. We are in a very uncomfortable position.

In essence we may be on a watershed mark today with the confirmation of Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense on a day when the Baker- Hamilton report has been filed which makes recommendations for changes. Ultimately, the President will have to make the decision.

We debated earlier this year proposals to have a withdrawal by stages in 2007 without a specification as to what there would be. We had a vote on withdrawal by July of 2007 which was decisively defeated, getting only 13 votes. The temper of the country is such that there is widespread public opposition to what is being done by the United States by way of military action in Iraq today. We learned the bitter experience of the Vietnam war, that we cannot conduct a war which is unpopular with the American people, which the American people reject.

In voting to confirm Mr. Gates, we will see the possibilities of a new chapter. But it is up to the President, it is up to the Commander in Chief to structure a change in policy which will ultimately take our troops out of harm's way, which will be done in a way consistent with maintaining stability in Iraq to the maximum extent possible to set the stage for Iraq to continue to develop its incipient democracy and, as per the Baker commission report, perhaps embed troops with the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police so they can undertake their own defense. But that will require the change in policy with all of the options having been presented by the variety of sources which I have cited.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement be printed in the Record.

I further ask unanimous consent that an essay which Christopher Bradish and I published in the current issue of the Washington Quarterly which goes into some greater detail about my own views as to the advisability of bilateral talks with Syria and Iran, as well as North Korea, be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Robert Gates to be the 22nd Secretary of Defense.

Dr. Gates comes to this position with a lifetime of service to his Nation and fellow Americans. He has served his country in uniform, as a civil servant, a policymaker and as an adviser to six Presidents, both Democrat and Republican. He has also served America by running one of our top institutions of higher learning, Texas A&M University and by serving on the boards of institutions such as the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America. It is no coincidence that at his graduation from William and Mary, he was awarded the Algernon Sydney Sullivan Award for making the greatest contributions to his fellow man.

However, it is his character and ability to lead that will be most critical during this time of sweeping and historic challenges facing the Nation and the Department of Defense. We must satisfy ourselves that Dr. Gates not only has a plan to overcome these challenges but the personality, the drive and the skills to do so. That he once again accepted the call to national service at a time of grave crisis, requiring his departure from his beloved Texas A&M, to me speaks volumes about his character and dedication to service.

As the Nation faces the imperative of charting a new course and strategy in Iraq, rising violence in Afghanistan, global terrorism, the threats posed by nuclear states such as North Korea and possibly Iran and the increasing strains on our military, America requires a leader of Bob Gates's caliber, who has the national security experience, the political acumen and the managerial style necessary to mend rifts that have resulted in the loss of America's certainty and optimism. He will be responsible for ensuring a strong working relationship between the Department of Defense and Congress, trust between the civilian and military leadership in the Pentagon, and the credibility of the Department with the American public.

To accomplish this in the relatively brief but critical tenure he will have at the Pentagon, he will have to rely on his pragmatism and his ability to work with others to develop consensus in order to create the unified approach that is currently lacking in meeting our Nation's challenges. In his previous service, he has shown he has the ability to work with both sides with a high degree of competency and integrity-- and I believe this capacity to work in a bipartisan fashion is critical to our ability to work through the challenges we face today.

One of his primary goals at the Department will be to foster mutual respect between our senior military leaders and the civilian leadership in the Pentagon. I look for him to provide our military leaders a clear voice on military operations. I believe he will listen to them and take their advice on such matters as planning for postcombat operations and force structure considerations in a manner that has been too long dormant.

As Dr. Gates assumes the helm at the Department of Defense he will be responsible for a variety of challenges ranging from the ongoing transformation of our forces, balancing operations, procurement and modernization accounts so our military forces have the tools they need to prevail now and in the future, to preparing those forces to meet global challenges from the Taiwan Straits to the jungles of South America.

Another issue of concern facing Dr. Gates is the Department of Defense's relationship with other executive branch agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence agencies. In Dr. Gates' written answers to the questions posed by the Armed Service Committee, he states that DHS and DOD have the common goal of protecting the United States and that he will support any steps that can be taken to improve and strengthen interagency cooperation so that all agencies are prepared for and able to respond to threats facing the U.S. homeland.

As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have witnessed egregious intelligence failures and a sweeping reorganization of the entire community. I have also emphasized the need to improve information sharing and strengthen interagency cooperation.

Dr. Gates has recently written that he was ``unhappy about the dominance of the Defense Department in the intelligence arena and the decline in the CIA's central role'' and that ``close cooperation between the military and the CIA in both clandestine operations and intelligence collection is essential.'' He also wrote that ``for the last decade, intelligence authority has been quietly leaching from the CIA to and to the Pentagon, not the other way around.'' During General Hayden's nomination hearing, I noted that one of General Hayden's primary challenges would be synchronizing the gears of our Nation's

intelligence collection capability. I believe Dr. Gates will now meet the challenge of synchronizing those gears at the Defense Department.

As someone who has had worked in the intelligence community for more than 27 years, I am confident that he is up to the task. I implore Dr. Gates to maintain that close cooperation so that, in his words, ``all agencies are prepared for and able to respond to the threats facing the homeland.''

In fact, it was while he was the Director of Central Intelligence in 1992 that he testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, about the need for the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community to cooperate saying, ``Our national security institutions, especially defense and intelligence, must change--and they are changing dramatically--to meet the new and different challenges of this new and different world.'' At that hearing Dr. Gates also warned us that aside from traditional issues of national security, we should be alert to other dangers such as terrorism that cannot ``be resolved simply through the application of military force or diplomacy.''

Dr. Gates clearly understood then and understands now America's preeminent role in leading the spread of democracy and performing global policing, yet he also recognizes the regional and sectarian nature of 21st century conflict. This sense of historical realism will stand him in good stead as he grapples with what is and will be his greatest and most pressing challenge--the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Dr. Gates is well versed in Middle East affairs, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan--having been the deputy national security adviser during the 1991 gulf war and providing oversight of U.S.-sponsored operations in Afghanistan under President Reagan. More recently, he cochaired a study at the Council on Foreign Studies in 2004 on U.S. relations towards Iran. Among the study's primary recommendations was that the U.S. directly engage with Iran on a diplomatic level and regarding Iranian nuclear programs.

He also recently served as part of the Iraq Study Group that is releasing its recommendations regarding U.S. strategic options this week. By all accounts, Dr. Gates spent considerable time in Iraq talking to Iraqis, soldiers, military leaders and diplomats to understand the myriad and intertwined complexities that will shape the future of Iraq. This understanding will be critical as he will have to proceed at full speed when he becomes Secretary--for we are long past the point where time is of the essence.

I believe that Robert Gates understands that we are at a critical juncture. As he said in his testimony yesterday, we are not winning the war in Iraq. He is straightforward in his approach and his language, and I believe he will offer a different and pragmatic approach. He rightly said during his testimony that there is not a military solution to Iraq--that this requires a political solution, and I believe he will signal to the Iraqi government that they and the Iraqi people need to decide if an Iraqi nation is more important to them than their sectarian interests. Because we can't decide that for them, and we can't make that happen for them.

There is no question that staying the course in Iraq is neither an option nor a plan and that the patience of the Congress and the American people is finite and our presence there is neither unlimited nor unconditional. I urge him to seek the advice of his military commanders regarding the roles and missions of our troops and to work in a bipartisan fashion with Congress to implementing the findings and recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

In closing, it is critical is that this nomination represents a commitment by the administration to unite our Nation to bring a lasting resolution to the war in Iraq. A new perspective at the Pentagon from a Defense Secretary confirmed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, coupled with the release of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's consensus recommendations, must serve as a catalyst for cooperation in establishing a unified plan for progress and transition in Iraq. In fact, with the confluence of these two events, this day must become a pivot point for our presence in Iraq.

Bob Gates' temperament, reputation, and experience has prepared him well for this challenging assignment and I have every faith that he will serve our Nation well as the Secretary of Defense. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Dr. Robert Gates to be our 22nd Secretary of Defense.