Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Sen. Harkin to establish the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I present this to begin a critical discussion about how we are going to ensure the United States capitalizes on new technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of our agricultural production.

We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. farm has grown from 19 to 129. Our farmers and farm leaders are on the cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible for one farmer to feed 129 people.

In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology.

In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. Unless we maximize technology and new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural resources.

Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The ability of U.S. agriculture producers to maintain our world leadership in this environment is only as solid as our willingness to commit to forward-looking investments.

Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations.

It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in how it works but what it can do.

We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many as half a million children go blind from Vitamin A deficiency, and maybe a

million die from this deficiency. Through plant biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and others have developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from the sunflower, a beta- carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The Golden Rice now has that Vitamin A, and that is going to make a significant difference in dealing with malnutrition.

We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make farmers self-sufficient and restore the farm economy in many of these countries, is through plant biotechnology. But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing today seeks to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the future.

This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University.

I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm.

In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world.

This legislation is supported by the some 22 Member and Associate Member Societies of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, as well as the Institute of Food Technologists, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, the Council for Agricultural Research, the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, the American Soybean Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.

I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 110th Congress. I invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and Senator Harkin to talk about moving forward on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture and its benefits to all our populations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to honor and recognize the immeasureable contributions MG Roger E. Combs has made to the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Army, the National Guard Bureau, his family, and a grateful nation.

When people talk about the ``Spirit of America'' and the people who helped make this country great, all one really has to do is mention the name of GEN Roger Combs. General Combs has dedicated his life to serving his country both in the military and as a civilian. His experiences, hard work, and honest counsel have gained him the respect of his peers and his community.

Born and raised on a small dairy farm in Stanberry, MO, to Ruby Fern and H.H. Combs, General Combs studied genetics and productive physiology at the University of Missouri-Columbia. While he planned to go into the family business and become a veterinarian, fate and the Vietnam War intervened and he joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1968. Graduating with honors from the USMC Basic Officer's Infantry School and selected for the U.S. Army Rotary wing's flight school, General Combs served a combat tour as a CH-46 helicopter pilot from 1969 to 1970 with HMM-364, ``The Purple Foxes'' at Marble Mountain Air Facility, Republic of Vietnam. Flying over 500 combat missions, he earned a Distinguished Flying Cross, two single mission air medals, and 37 ``strick/flight awards.'' After returning from active duty in Vietnam, General Combs served in many positions, including as an operations officer and aircraft maintenance officer with HMM-263 at Marine Corps Air Station, Quantico, VA.

General Combs' work in Missouri merits special recognition and is the reason I felt compelled to make a statement on his behalf in the Congressional Record. After leaving active duty in 1973, General Combs joined the Missouri Army National Guard and flew UH-1 ``Huey's'' with the 635th Aviation Company, from Whiteman, AFB, MO. He transferred to the Missouri Air National Guard in 1978 and later became the director of intelligence for the 139th Tactical Airlift Group in St. Joseph, MO. Yet it was at the Missouri Air National Guard Headquarters in St. Joseph, MO that General Combs become nationally recognized for his expertise in developing long-range strategic planning. As first a planner, then general officer and member of the Air Reserve Forces Policy Committee, General Combs was instrumental in analyzing the future needs of the National Guard and advising senior policy makers on the best course of action.

General Combs' footprint extended outside of the military. Upon his return to Missouri after serving in Vietnam, Combs returned to law school at the University of Missouri and upon graduation became a partner in a law firm, a prosecuting attorney, and was elected a judge in 1990. This past December he retired from the bench and returned to being a part time prosecutor and general practitioner.

Perhaps the best measure of General Combs' legacy comes from those who have worked along side him. ``Judge Combs,'' as he is affectionately known by his peers and military associates, is an excellent lawyer and military strategist with impeccable character and integrity. The ``Judge'' was effective in both the military and judicial branches in encouraging parties to seek arbitration and dispute resolution instead of litigation. One good friend and colleague recalled that it was not only General ``Judge'' Combs, dry humor which endeared him to his peers but his sincere interest in caring and protecting those who served under him. ``He goes to extraordinary links to ensure they are cared for, ``said one colleague.

I cannot conclude these remarks without commending the dedicated and loving support of General Combs' wife, Gloria, and his three children David, Matthew, and Susan. Married almost 35 years ago at Conaway Hall at Andrews Air Force Base, Gloria has remained General Combs' most loyal supporter and confidant.

General ``Judge'' Combs has led an extraordinary life in which he has answered his Nation's call to duty and served courageously in war and admirably from the bench. It is my hope and prayer that ``Judge'' Combs will continue to thrive alongside Gloria in whatever endeavor he opts to pursue. If his former, and current, success is any indicator, I am certain that the years ahead will be both fruitful and rewarding. God bless you, ``Judge'' and best wishes.

I would like 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this very important subject. Some have said we don't want to debate the war in Iraq, but we have been doing that and I am happy to debate it.

We are at war. One of the jobs of this body is to support our troops when we are at war. As such, we should be taking up the supplemental war funding bill that will directly support and aid our service men and women and support the efforts underway in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I regret the Democratic leadership has chosen to delay acting on funds our troops in the field need and must have by the 1st of May. Here we go, talking about resolutions. We are taking up nonbinding resolutions. The key one is nonsensical; it would serve only to undermine the morale of our service men and women and boost the morale of our enemies. S.J. Res. 9 has a clear message, if not to Americans reading the news, certainly to our enemy: America has been defeated. America does not have the will to win. Or we cannot defeat American troops on the streets of Iraq, but we can defeat America in the halls of Congress. That is what they will be saying.

Out of the 17 different resolutions the majority has worked with and introduced, they have decided to debate S.J. Res. 9--one in a litany of defeatist, micromanaging resolutions that have been offered by the other side.

Like so many of the others, it calls for a retreat and it ensures defeat. Such a retreat, in its wake, would create a bastion of instability, violence, regional conflict, and a launching point for future attacks on our allies and this Nation such as that witnessed after 9/11. The intelligence community, in public testimony before our committee in January, publicly stated that the very real three-pronged threat of turning Iraq over to the chaos is a serious challenge we all should consider.

Fortunately, those of us who believe the generals ought to run the war have the Constitution on our side, which specifies that the President--not those of us in the 535 Members of Congress--is Commander in Chief. The proponents of S.J. Res. 9 to set deadlines must now believe they are more equipped, better informed, and have better judgment than the leaders and military commanders they recently and unanimously confirmed.

Is the American public to believe that the legislators in these beautiful halls, 8,000 miles away from the front, are better equipped to develop strategies than General Petraeus, whom this body confirmed unanimously to lead U.S. forces?

I think the Founding Fathers were right at the time and they are right now. We do not fight wars in the Halls of Congress. We cannot win this war by resolutions we pass, but we can lose the war in the Halls of Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to cite public opinion polls about Iraq as well as a reason why we should pull out. What may be perceived to be popular in the short run, regrettably, will in the long run compound into an even bigger problem that will end up costing us and our allies far more blood and treasure.

Further, when it comes to national security, we ought to be governing on principles, not on public opinion polls.

The American people want victory, not defeat. They are demanding progress, which the new security plan was designed to produce. Incidentally, this new plan fits almost exactly with the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton committee, which so many people on both sides of the aisle said would be the ultimate solution. Well, General Petraeus and the administration are carrying out the details of the Baker-Hamilton plan, and now we are changing our mind. Why? Well, some, I fear, may be inspired by a loathing of President Bush. But even to those of you who do, I appeal to you to recognize the President is not the enemy. The enemy is ruthlessly chopping the heads off innocent civilians in front of cameras, blowing up schoolchildren, blowing up places of worship. One Army officer recently e-mailed me and said:

I proudly served in Iraq. I know who the enemies of America

are. I have met them in person. Our President is not the

enemy.

This would not be George Bush's defeat or victory. It will be an American defeat or victory, and the sooner we understand that, the sooner perhaps we can be united.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, recently wrote a piece in the Washington Post describing the sad state of current political affairs. It was entitled ``Grand Illusion.'' In the piece he asserted:

Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking

for a different kind of political solution: the solution to

their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost

2 years off.

This is coming, as he indicates in his article, just as ``American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad.''

He goes on to say that ``they've launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia.''

This is appropriate advice. He says:

Politicians in both parties should realize that success in

this mission is in their interest, as well as the nation's.

Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be

responsible, and provide the moral and material support our

forces need and expect.

Despite many people's dissatisfaction with the war, I don't think a majority of Americans want us to withdraw, to retreat and admit defeat.

Throughout the debate, we have also heard references and comparisons made to Vietnam, that this is a quagmire, that the war is unjust, poorly managed, it threatens our individual liberties, it is unwinnable, and the only option is to pull out. All of the very same things were said during the campaign against President Lincoln in 1864, with well over one-quarter of a million dead Americans; after the Union suffered 7,000 casualties in 30 short minutes at Cold Harbor; and until Sherman won in Atlanta.

If you look at our history, anybody getting 24-hour television news during the battles Americans fought against the British in 1776, you would have had to say we were in worse shape than we are now.

When you look at the conditions our troops were in before D-Day and all the things that went wrong, 24-hour news coverage would have convinced an overwhelming majority of the American people to forget it, pull the plug, let the Nazis have it. But if somebody used Vietnam as a model--and it should be used completely--I think it reminds people of the image associated with Vietnam that too many ignore.

I suspect this is a historical photo that many of our murderous enemies dream would be superimposed over the rooftops of Baghdad. These are the people left behind. We left behind people. Some 2.5 million were murdered after we pulled out of Vietnam.

This is, of course, the final, classic departure, people trying to get away. Those who didn't were slaughtered.

Our enemies throughout the radical Islamist world are all too familiar with immediate withdrawal and retreat. We withdrew from Vietnam, we withdrew from Beirut, and we withdrew from Mogadishu.

These repeated withdrawals signaled to our enemies all over the world that if they inflict enough damage on our most heroic citizens, the Marines will never surrender but Washington will.

And make no mistake about it, they are watching. They are watching to see what we will do in Iraq.

These repeated withdrawals invited the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the bombings of our embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, and eventually 9/11. None of these actions occurred because of our action to liberate Iraq. Five or six of these attacks occurred before President Bush took office, and George Bush did not invent the danger from radical Islam.

Further, the notion of separating al-Qaida from the sectarian killers can only be contemplated from as far away as Washington because al- Qaida is targeting the mixed neighborhoods and has overtly promised sectarian violence to undermine the Iraqi Government and to weaken U.S. Government resolve.

The Democratic resolution before us now is precisely what our enemies want to hear and, sadly, are expecting to hear.

Here are some quotes from one of the people we ought to be reading more frequently, Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden said:

We found that out from our brothers who fought the

Americans in Somalia. They did not see it as a power worthy

of any mention. . . . God gave them and the mujahideen

success in Somalia and the United States pulled out, trailing

disappointment, defeat and failure behind it. It achieved

nothing. It left quicker than people had imagined.

That is what Osama bin Laden said on October 21, 2001.

In addition to that statement, he said on February 14, 2003:

It has been made clear during our defending and fighting

against the American enemy that this enemy's combat strategy

is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war . . .

which hides the cowardice and lack of fighting spirit of the

American soldier. . . . Likewise, let me remind you of the

defeat of the American forces in Beirut in 1982, soon after

the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when the Lebanese resistance

was personified by a truck laden with explosives that struck

the main military base of the U.S. Marines in Beirut, killing

242 soldiers--towards hell was their destination and what an

evil destination that is.

This is what Osama bin Laden thinks of us. He stated many times that Americans don't have the stomach for conflict and this Democratic resolution embodies that very notion.

What Osama bin Laden and the enemies we are fighting against expect to see is Vietnam. Let's give General Petraeus more confidence. General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously. He stated that the effort in Iraq will have to be sustained to achieve its desired effect and that more troops are vital to advancing security. We confirmed him unanimously. Give him a chance.

He reported last week that nine Iraqi reinforcement battalions have entered Baghdad. He pointed to a decrease in sectarian killings, the discovery of numerous weapons caches, and the capture of al-Qaida members. Al-Sadr has fled Sadr City, and al-Baghdadi was recently reported caught.

Associated Press reporter Robert Reid recently reported General

Petraeus walking through the streets of Hit, a Sunni city with a bloody past. Last month in the article, he reported:

Iraqi police backed by U.S. troops swept through the city

of about 120,000 people, arresting suspected insurgents and

establishing three new police stations in the downtown area.

Since then, the number of violent incidents has dropped from

an average of 5 per day to 1.3 per day.

Now that a relative level of security has been established, the important political and economic development work must begin.

In the past, the United States had claimed similar victories in Hit, but those gains were lost because of lack of enough troops to sustain the province.

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, while it is far too premature to declare that the new strategy has succeeded, it does indicate there is a possibility. As General Abizaid once testified, despair is not a policy. It must be given a chance to succeed, and this resolution would do nothing to achieve victory. The alternative of retreat and defeat would be disastrous.

What are my colleagues who wish to see us leave Iraq thinking will happen once we do? The arguments for retreating before relative security is established because we grow tired of the war, because mistakes were made or because Americans allegedly want us to leave all ignore what the consequences will be if we do leave precipitously on a political withdrawal timetable.

Those who are advocating for retreat and departure from Iraq absolutely must address this very difficult question. In other words, what is ``Plan Bravo,'' plan B, for those mandating retreat? Are we to redeploy forces back home only to have to redeploy them in much larger numbers 3, 4, 5 years from now, once Baghdad has turned into a base of operations and safe haven for al-Qaida? Will we endure the transfer of Islamofascist terrorism and violence occurring in the Middle East back to the homeland?

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 60 seconds.

Mr. President, are we going to bear witness to a conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that would spread into a regional war throughout the Middle East? Will we sit idly by while a regional conflict ensues that would result in the death of thousands of civilians? What will happen when the price of oil goes up? Will we see radical Islam taking over more parts of the world? Will we hand them Iraq on a silver platter? Will we have to again deploy troops to the Middle East?

To ignore these considerations and questions simply because they are not politically palatable is shortsighted at best and dangerous at the worst. Those who are attempting to end the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq will do anything but end. In fact, it will only grow more dangerous.

Mr. President, I suggest that Mr. Kagan had it right. In his article, he also said there ought to be a plan B for the Washington Post and others who have projected and counted on defeat. What is your plan B if General Petraeus's works and you predicted so successfully it won't work?

We need to put the money behind our troops, give General Petraeus the support for the new plan with money and support that effort underway. Our 130,000 to 150,000 American troops and their families at home are depending on us. They have a direct stake in this historic event, and I believe that fighting is necessary to prevail over evil.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to commend Senators Lieberman and Collins for all their hard work on S. 4 and I would especially like to thank them for their support of my amendment calling for further congressional review and action with regard to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission identified many shortfalls, some in the intelligence community and some in congressional oversight.

We can never ease the pain and anguish of the 9/11 families resulting from the deaths of their loved ones. It is possible, however, to do everything within our power to ensure more American families are not subjected to a similar nightmare.

We owe it to the 9/11 families as well as the American people to adopt reforms that will improve intelligence collection and dissemination, as well as will improve congressional oversight.

Putting our own house in order may not be popular, but it is the right thing to do.

I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member, as well as the members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to continue to improve U.S. intelligence and congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence.

In closing, I would also like to thank Ms. Holly Idelson of Senator Lieberman's staff and Mr. Brandon Milhorn of Senator Collins's staff for their assistance to me and my staff. Both of these young people went out of their way to assist us, and I am grateful to them for their courteous demeanor and their professional conduct.

Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1129. This important legislation is necessary to provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an arterial road in the Lemay area of St. Louis County, MO. This road, the Lemay connector road, is the lynchpin of the long-term recovery of that community and will open several abandoned industrial sites to new industrial, commercial and retail development and create thousands of new much-needed jobs. The road was identified as the highest priority for redeveloping the area in a federally-funded study conducted by the Missouri Department of Transportation.

Mr. President, I vividly recall the devastation that was caused by the the flooding in 1993 and one of the areas that was hardest hit was the community of Lemay. In response to that tragedy, Congress enacted an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. As a new member of that committee, I worked to appropriate supplemental funds for HUD's community development grants to compensate homeowners for losses and to clear the area. Property acquired with the funds, however, was required to be maintained for uses consistent with open space, recreation or wetlands management. This was a one-time requirement, and no other property acquired using CDBG funds before or since the 1994 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act has carried similar deed restrictions. Furthermore, I want to assure my colleagues that we are not establishing any precedent by adopting this legislation in part because of the unique situation in which properties became deed restricted and also because exceptions have been made to allow for roads and public works development on deed restricted lands.

Mr. President, my colleague from Missouri is correct that no Federal funds will be used for either construction or maintenance of this road. Furthermore, this road will become a county road and it will not be part of the Federal-aid system. Under current law, which this bill does not amend, the Lemay connector road is not an eligible use of Federal funding.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Oregon for his persistence in pursuing something we both agree should and must be disclosed and made public, to the extent it can consistent with national security. Accountability for one's actions is something most of us are taught from childhood. It is rooted not only in religious teachings but also in the tenets of government at the Federal, State, and local levels.

For those of us in public service, whether we be in an elected capacity or appointed position or some form of service directly related to the security of our Nation, we should know we must expect to be held accountable for our actions. When we serve the people and if we expect the rewards of doing good deeds, just as surely we should face the negative consequences of actions which do not turn out well.

In addition, the public, to the maximum extent possible consistent with national security, should have made available to it the findings and the conclusions of the Government's own agencies with regard to accountability.

As my colleague from Oregon has stated, in June of 2005 the Office of Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency published a report concerning the conduct of intelligence activities prior to September 11, 2001, and afterward. To this date, that report remains classified. The amendment Senator Wyden and I propose requires the CIA to make as much of that report public as is possible, consistent with protecting the sensitive sources and methods relating to our national security.

The Senator from Oregon has referred to the 9/11 Commission, the joint congressional inquiry. Our Senate Select Committee on Intelligence spent 2 very intense years, 2003 and 2004, doing an extensive investigation of what the intelligence was, how it was formulated, what the problems were, and we found that there were tremendous holes in it. So much of what would be found in the inspector general's report has already been stated. But I think to make the record clear and complete, so that we may ensure that all of the agencies working on national intelligence have the ability to learn from the mistakes--and we in our role as the oversight committee will use the information in this report and on this floor, if need be--to point out how we can make our intelligence better.

In an age where the war on terrorism has been brought to us by radical Islamic groups who continue to threaten us, good intelligence is the only defense we have adequate to the threat we face. It is important that we get it right.

Now, it is not pleasant to air some of these mistakes. We all make mistakes, but we better learn from them or we are destined to commit them again.

I thank my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside this amendment so that I may offer a Rockefeller-Bond amendment.

I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I ask that the postponed recognition of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina now be instituted. I express my gratitude to him for allowing us to go forward with the intervening amendment.

Madam President, I thank the ranking member of the committee.

When this committee was formed a long time ago--30 years ago--we lacked congressional oversight. Since 9/11, we found that congressional oversight had not been as good as it should have been, and one of my first acts when I was appointed vice chairman was I suggested to the chairman that passing the authorization bill was the top priority. He agreed. We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to have an impact on the intelligence community.

There are already a number of Rockefeller-Bond amendments on this 9/ 11 bill. There will be more.

There are some who say there is nothing an executive branch agency values more than a lack of congressional oversight. But I believe congressional oversight can help them do their job better.

Is this bill perfect? No. But it is largely the same bill as last year, and we have changed provisions that were objectionable. On the good side, it would ensure that the exemption of Freedom of Information Act requirements carries over to operational files. There is a specific provision creating, within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a National Space Intelligence Center.

In reviewing all these, we worked very closely together to deal with problems in the bill. I believe we have taken care of most of the problems people raised. What I am afraid of is that people are objecting to the bill without knowing what is in the bill, without knowing the changes we have made, the accommodations that have been made by the chairman and by the vice chairman to make this bill acceptable.

Some have said that the administration has concerns. If the administration has concerns, obviously they could exercise those concerns in a veto. But if they have concerns, I am not sure they know the changes and the provisions we have added to this bill.

I invite my colleagues who have problems with the bill to talk with me or with the chairman about the bill so we can move it. We have worked long and hard to help improve the operations of the intelligence community. Our bill is the one way we have of providing that guidance and sharing with the intelligence community the issues that the bipartisan members of this committee believe are important.

I invite anybody, all people or any person who has a hold on this bill, to come forward and find out what is in the bill. Don't judge it by what you think it may contain.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I could impose and ask for 2 minutes, so that Senator Craig and myself will consume a total of 5 minutes on this side.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia, truly a Virginia gentlemen and a good friend and a leader. I am most grateful.

I join with my colleague from Idaho in saying Senator Lieberman's statement is one of a true statesman, one we all ought to take to heart. I commend it and I will make that required reading for anybody who asks about this issue.

Three quick points. I was asked yesterday by the media why the drumbeat on Iran. Simple answer: Iran is providing the EFPs, the explosively formed penetrators that are killing more and more Americans. We have tried, by diplomatic pressure, to get Iran to stop. Now we have even caught a leader of the Quds Force, the Iranian elite special forces unit, that reports directly to the ayatollah. They are there. The Iranians' special forces are there.

Some say, well, maybe the top leaders don't know. But how many folks believe your special forces are going to go someplace, have the devices that only Iran can make, and the top leaders not know anything about it? That is why the drumbeat on Iran. We ought to take out the Iranian fighters and stop the weapons coming in.

Secondly, on this resolution, it not only downgrades General Petraeus and says that although we confirmed you unanimously, we don't believe in your mission, but it also says to our allies, the neighboring countries that have been brought in on this new strategy--a new strategy that General Petraeus is implementing--that they shouldn't bother to come in and help us stop the deterioration in Iraq, which could lead to chaos and a takeover, and it also says to the enemy we are not going to be there.

I am taking an intel trip and will not be here for the vote. I am strongly opposed to cloture on this. So by being absent, I will deny those seeking the 60 votes my vote, and I strongly urge my colleagues who are here to vote no.

Mr. President, with more than 100 different forms, arthritis is one of the most widespread and devastating health conditions in the United States. Nearly 46 million, or one in every five, American adults suffer from arthritis or chronic joint symptoms, and 300,000 children live with the pain, disability and emotional trauma caused by juvenile arthritis.

As the leading cause of disability in the United States, arthritis is a painful and debilitating chronic disease affecting men, women and children alike. This is why the Federal Government must make a stronger investment in research, treatment and prevention of arthritis.

We know that early diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate management of arthritis can control symptoms and improve quality of life. The Arthritis Prevention, Control and Cure Act will expand the Federal Government's efforts to find new ways to prevent, treat, and care for patients with arthritis and related rheumatic diseases by: (1) improving coordination among Federal agencies and the public with regard to the Federal investment in arthritis research and public health activities through a National Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases Summit; (2) accelerating research that will lead to improved treatments and a cure for juvenile arthritis; (3) investing in a nationwide public health initiative designed to reduce the pain and disability of arthritis through early diagnosis and effective treatment of the disease; and (4) ensuring kids with arthritis have access to specialty care by addressing the nationwide shortage of pediatric rheumatologists.

We have a responsibility to look for solutions to this issue in a comprehensive manner. I look forward to working with Senator Kennedy on this important legislation which will make a real difference in the lives of the millions of Americans, both young and old, who suffer from this debilitating disease.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of myself and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the text of the Education Begins at Home Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of myself and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the text of the Education Begins at Home Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I came to the Senate to talk about the loss of a great soldier and dear friend of mine, but before I do that, I will comment on a few things we have heard discussed this morning.

First, our efforts on this side are to get an opportunity to debate and vote on the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment, very simply stated--I don't have the full text in front of me--supports our troops. It says we should support our troops and not cut off funding. That is a valid viewpoint. We are at war. Traditionally, this Senate has supported our troops. That used to be the absolute baseline which everyone accepted. The main resolution that has been referred to, I fear, goes in the wrong direction.

We, in time of war, ought to debate, and we will debate fully, and everyone will have an opportunity to express their views--but I think it is very important we not only have an opportunity to vote on the two resolutions which have been discussed but also to vote on the Gregg amendment. As soon as we can get agreement to do that, I am confident the leaders can move forward.

I have also heard in the Senate a number of comments from Members who do not support a cut-and-run policy. I have addressed previously the disaster of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In open testimony, the intelligence community--the Director of National Intelligence--the Director of CIA, the Director of Military Intelligence, said chaos would reign in Iraq if we withdrew precipitously. It would fall into chaos. The primary beneficiary of that chaos would be al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden and Al-Jazeera have said how important it was for them to establish Iraq as their main base of operations.

Second, there would be chaos and slaughter of innocent civilians, both Shia and Sunni. There would be a tremendous increase in the deaths of civilians. But even more frightening, the neighboring states would likely be brought in. The Sunni states would likely come to the aid of their Sunni brethren, and if that had not already triggered the entrance of Iran into it on behalf of the Shia, it surely would, and we could potentially be facing a major Middle East conflict with many states involved.

I have heard it said that the Levin-Warner resolution asks we chart a new direction. We have charted a new direction. And the way forward is a new direction. The President has the agreement of Prime Minister al- Maliki and the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish government of Iraq that they will take control and they will assume responsibility. They need help in training particularly their police, but they will take control. That is where we need to be.

We can help pick off the al-Qaida and the other committed international terrorists, the radical Islamists. But we need them to resolve this civil strife between Shia and Sunni, and do so in a fair way, including the Kurds and the Sunnis.

This happens to be the military plan the Baker-Hamilton group supported. They said to enable the Iraqi security, military, and police to take over, we should send in some troops temporarily. That is what the President is doing, adding another 21,000 to support them.

Is this going to work? Well, again, with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and the open testimony of the leaders of the intelligence community, they said it is an open question. It is a tough decision. But it is the best option we have.

Yes, they think there is a chance it will work. And the Iraqi Government knows this is their last best chance. They had best make it work. And they best get their police trained and their military trained.

Many people have called for bringing in other nations in the Middle East. That is what the President and Secretary Rice have done, to bring in other nations that will help rebuild the Sunni areas and help provide support to the Iraqis.

There are some people who say we should not have an unlimited commitment. Well, the President has told not only this Nation but Prime Minister al-Maliki there is a time deadline. We are committed to them but not indefinitely. And if they do not take advantage of this opportunity, it will be their country which will fall into chaos

and be the battleground, perhaps embroiling the entire region, but certainly wiping out and causing great death and destruction in their own country. So we do have a new direction.

Now, some are pushing a resolution that challenges the President's implementation of the plan. We are trying to be generals and say General Petraeus--whom we just confirmed unanimously because he is such a great general, who said we should have those 21,000 troops--they are challenging his military judgment in the implementation of the plan.

I know many of my colleagues have followed military policy for many years, but I do not think we in this body can determine for the generals what the proper level of troop commitments is. They are the ones who take responsibility for the lives of their men and women. To send a message by adopting a resolution that says we oppose the President's plan, implementation of his plan, is not going to change sending more American troops there.

But it will tell al-Qaida: Good news, boys, the Congress is opposing the President. Our chances look better to take over the country.

And it will send a message to friendly countries that are trying to help the Iraqis telling them: Sorry guys, we are not interested in winning this, so you probably would not want to waste your effort helping us.

Finally, what does it send as a message to our troops: We do not support the military plan they are being asked to carry out, the men and women who are risking their lives? Does that make any sense? I fear not.

I hope we can reject very soundly the Levin-Warner amendment and adopt the Gregg amendment and also the McCain amendment.

Now, Mr. President, let me turn to another matter, a matter of sorrow. I tell this body that at a wonderful military ceremony last Saturday, we laid to rest LTG Charles M. Kiefner, formerly Adjutant General of the Missouri National Guard--a man who I considered a friend for almost 40 years, a man whose career was an amazing one.

I called on him to serve as my Adjutant General for the 8 years I served as Governor. Having come from the Guard, he was the youngest Adjutant General at the time, still by far the youngest Adjutant General in Missouri. But he knew the citizen soldiers who made up the Guard. He knew those citizen soldiers and respected them, and they respected him.

When I left office and Governor Ashcroft took over, he made him his Adjutant General for the next 8 years. He served 16 years. In that time, he not only built the Missouri National Guard to be one of the finest units--Air and Army National Guard--in America, but he was very strong in establishing a Guard presence on Capitol Hill.

It was at his urging that I went to my colleague, Wendell Ford of Kentucky, and we set up the National Guard Caucus, on which today Senator Pat Leahy and I proudly serve as cochairmen. That caucus has brought together 75 to 80 Members of this body to stand up for the necessary resources, the necessary personnel, and the necessary support of the Guard when active forces in the Pentagon tend to overlook them.

The Guard is a better place today because of the leadership that General Kiefner showed as he headed the National Guard, the Adjutants General Association, as he worked with his colleagues throughout the country, and as he and those generals worked to make sure the Guard was strengthened.

The Guard remembers him with great fondness. Lieutenant General Vaughn of Missouri, who had served in the Guard under General Kiefner, presented the flag to his wonderful wife Marilyn, his sons John and Keith.

Charles M. Kiefner was born June 28, 1930, in Cape Girardeau, MO. He graduated from high school in 1948 and attended Westminster College in Fulton. He earned his bachelor of arts degree from Columbia College in 1975.

General M. Keifner, or Charlie to his friends--and I am lucky to have counted myself as one of his many--was a great man and a great American patriot. Under his strong leadership, including as the youngest Adjutant General, the men and women in the Missouri National Guard came to exemplify the best this country has to offer.

Having begun his military career by enlisting as a private in Company F, 140th Infantry Regiment of the Missouri Army National Guard on September 24, 1947, General Keifner entered active duty on September 11, 1950, with the 175th Military Police Battalion of Missouri Army National Guard and served in Germany with that unit. He was commissioned a second lieutenant, Infantry on December 21, 1951. He served as platoon leader, company commander, battalion motor officer, Battalion S-2, brigade adjutant and S-3, executive officer and logistics officer on the staff of the Adjutant General. As a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, from September 11, 1978, to November 5, 1980, he served as liaison officer to the U.S. Military Academy, West Point.

General Kiefner was first appointed Adjutant General by me on May 8, 1973, when I served as Missouri's Governor, and held the Adjutant General's position until March 1977, when I left the Governor's office. Upon my reelection in 1981, I once again called on this great leader and appointed General Kiefner to lead the Missouri National Guard. General Kiefner served as Adjutant General throughout my two terms as Missouri Governor. As a testament to his skill and great leadership, he was later called upon by Governor John Ashcroft to serve 8 more years in the Ashcroft administration.

General Kiefner not only served Missouri admirably, he also served his nation with honor. A friend who knew him for 35 years during his service in the Guard recalls:

He was a professional soldier who made a point to know what

was going on at every level of the Guard, from the enlisted

soldiers to the three star Generals. He knew precisely what

the threat to our homeland was and made great efforts to

ensure the Guard was prepared to protect us from those

threats.

Members of the Army National Guard knew and respected General Kiefner and called upon him to serve as president of the National Guard Association of the United States, a position he held proudly and worked diligently to enhance our Nation's modern-day minutemen's and women's ability to meet their dual-mission at home and abroad.

Upon his retirement from the National Guard in 1993, Major General Kiefner was promoted to the grade of lieutenant general, Missouri National Guard Retired List by Governor Mel Carnahan. ``At his own retirement he could not speak because he knew the overwhelming emotion he would feel at leaving the service he loved so dearly would overcome him,'' said one friend and colleague. ``He was an emotional man that was totally committed to his country, Missourians, and the men under his command.''

His many decorations and awards include: the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Department of Defense Identification Badge, Ranger Tab, NGB Distinguished Service Medal, NGAUS Distinguished Service Medal, Missouri Meritorious Service Medal, Missouri Conspicuous Service Medal, Indiana Distinguished Service Medal, Minnesota Distinguished Service Medal, Tennessee Distinguished Service Medal, Minnesota Medal for Merit, 1992 Distinguished Alumni Award--Westminster College, Field Artillery Association Order of Saint Barbara, Army Engineers Association Silver Order of the de Fleury Medal, and the Sons of the American Revolution Silver Good Citizenship Award.

Charlie understood the great citizen soldiers who signed up for the Guard. When he gave them an order they knew he understood them and they were willing to follow.

I have lost a great friend, not just a former Adjutant General. There have been many fine individuals who have worn the uniform of our Nation's Army National Guard, but none more proudly than LTG Charles M. Kiefner.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that under the previous order the Senate stand in recess until the appointed hour.