Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to our friend and colleague, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi. When Senator Lott steps down at the end of this year after 35 years of service to our country in the Congress, he will leave behind a legacy of leadership and service to Mississippi.

I have known Senator Lott for many years. Our friendship dates back to when he was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1972.

In 1981, when serving as House Republican whip he played a central role in the formation of a bipartisan coalition which produced national security initiatives and promoted economic recovery under President Ronald Reagan.

In 1994, Senator Lott became the first Republican to ever have been elected whip in both houses, and then went on to become Senate majority leader. He and his friend and fellow Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran, who were both elected to the House in 1972, were the first two Republicans to win statewide elections in the Magnolia State since Reconstruction.

In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina left nothing but an oak tree on the front lawn of where his home had been in Pascagoula, MS, Senator Lott worked tirelessly for recovery funding and tax breaks for gulf coast homeowners and businesses who had lost everything.

My wife, Lilibet, who is also from Mississippi and I wish Trent, Tricia, and their family every happiness in their new life. They have earned it. But we will miss them.

Mr. President, I know all our colleagues join me in congratulating Senator Trent Lott on a long, successful, and distinguished congressional career.

Madam President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Michael Doheny of Nebraska. Michael, a civilian contractor, died in Iraq on December 9 when an improvised explosive device struck his convoy vehicle. He was 35 years old.

Michael was raised in Broken Bow, NE, and graduated from Broken Bow High School in 1996. He joined the Marine Corps after high school, where he served 8 years and achieved the rank of sergeant. In 2005, Michael left the military and began work as a civilian contractor for SOC-SMG, providing security at military bases and other installations. He was serving his third tour of duty as a civilian contractor in Iraq when he was killed.

All of Nebraska is proud of Michael's service to our country, as well as the thousands of brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Michael is remembered as a devoted husband, son, and brother. In addition to his wife Melissa, he is survived by his mother, Kathy Kugler; two brothers, Marine Sgt. Robert Kugler and John Doheny; and sister Amy Ritchie.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Michael Doheny.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the loss of Vietnam veteran Charles E. ``Butch'' Joeckel, who was buried yesterday with military honors at the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery.

Butch was raised in Colmar Manor, MD, graduating from Bladensburg High School in 1965. In 1966 he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and fought for his country in Vietnam. He was seriously wounded during the Tet Offensive in 1968, losing both of his legs above the knees. For his heroic service, Butch received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Navy Commendation Medal with Combat Valor, and numerous meritorious citations, medals, and honors.

Butch's service to his country did not end in Vietnam. He became a national service officer for the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and in 1988 he rose to the position of DAV national adjutant, serving in this capacity until 1993. He served on the board of directors of Help Disabled War Veterans, and contributed his time, wise counsel, and strong efforts to the President's Task Force to Improve Access to Health Care for our Nation's Veterans at the National Veterans Legal Services Program. In 2004 he was appointed to the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission.

Butch was an inspiration to all who knew him, and especially for those who were disabled. He accepted the heavy responsibility of ``role model'' for disabled war veterans with grace, dignity, and a special twinkle of humor.

For all of his selfless service to his country, Butch's family always came first. He is survived by his wife Dianne; his three children, Chuck, Tammy and Scott; his father, Charles, Sr.; his sister and brother-in-law; three sisters-in-law; 11 nieces and nephews; and seven grandchildren.

Butch was an American patriot who believed in his country and fought for his country and the veterans who built it. America owes him our thanks for his contributions and sacrifices. Our country lost an American original, who will be missed by many.

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

Mr. President, yesterday the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell, released the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear weapons program. This NIE, which represents the best collective judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, told us:

Our intelligence community has concluded with high

confidence that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in

2003.

This is a major reversal of the intelligence community's previous intelligence assessment in 2005 that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons. The NIE states that the nuclear weapons program was halted primarily in response to international pressure, which suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence.

Perhaps most significant is the DNI's conclusion that some combination of threats of intensified scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals might prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.

I commend Admiral McConnell and his colleagues for their decision to release unclassified conclusions based on this current intelligence. I do not believe we can overstate the importance of this new information.

The effects of this NIE will be felt here, at the United Nations, throughout Europe, across the entire Middle East, the world, and in Iran.

The NIE closely parallels many of the conclusions of the Internal Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, the international organization, with the most direct on-the-ground access to Iran's nuclear facilities. Once again, the facts appear to be bearing out the conclusions of the IAEA. This NIE, as well as the IAEA's analysis, should help inform and shape U.S. strategy on Iran.

President Bush has a responsibility to carefully consider the policy implications concerning Iran with this new information, and I know he will. He said in his news conference this morning that this new information which he has confidence in would be factored into our policy regarding Iran.

The United States must pursue a clear and strategic policy toward Iran

based on this new intelligence and fact-based assessment to avoid the disastrous mistakes of Iraq. Yesterday's NIE does not invalidate the effectiveness of previous efforts to use an international consensus of pressure on Iran. We must be careful not to run from one end of the pendulum all the way to the other.

As President Bush noted again this morning, the United States must continue to work with our friends and our allies to sustain an international consensus on Iran. I believe the President is correct: alliances, common purpose, common interests, focus, discipline.

Iran's objectionable words and actions are real, and they must continue to be addressed. That means a very clear-eyed and realistic sense of Iran and its motives. As I said in my November 8 CSIS speech regarding U.S.-Iran policy, the United States must employ a comprehensive strategy regarding Iran: Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the Middle East, a regional comprehensive strategy.

Yesterday's NIE reinforces the need for directed, unconditional, and comprehensive engagement with Iran. The United States and the international community must use all--all--elements of our foreign policy arsenal in offering direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The United States should be clear that all issues, our issues and Iran's issues, are on the table, including offering Iran a credible way back from the fringes of the international community, security guarantees, and other incentives.

We urgently need to adopt a comprehensive strategy on Iran that is focused on direct engagement and diplomacy backed, as diplomacy must always be backed, by the leverage of international pressure, isolation, containment, and military options.

The United States must employ wise statecraft to redirect deepening tensions with Iran toward a higher ground of resolution. That is what Annapolis was about last week. America is the great power here. Iran is not the great power. We must be the more mature country in testing the proposition that the United States and Iran can overcome decades of mutual mistrust, suspicion, and hostility.

That is diplomacy. Diplomacy is not talking to your friends; diplomacy is not giving another country bonus points for us talking to them. There is a reason for diplomacy. We should not squander this opportunity as we did in the spring of 2003 when we had an opportunity for an opening to explore talks with Iran.

This initiative, by the way, in 2003, came from Iran. We are witnessing a confluence of events in the Middle East and around the world that presents the United States with new opportunities. There are hopeful and positive recent developments: Progress on North Korea's nuclear weapons program; the recent regional meeting in Istanbul on Iraq; the momentum generated by last week's Annapolis Middle East meeting where all Arab countries, including Syria, sat at the same table with Israel; and yesterday's NIE assessment.

Now is the time for America to act and to lead, and to lead boldly, with confidence, with our allies, focusing on a common purpose.

One dimensional optics, policies, and blunt black-or-white rhetoric, such as ``you are either with us or you are against us'' will not work, haven't worked, and will fall short of what is expected from American leadership in the eyes of the world.

The world faces challenges and opportunities today that carry with it implications well beyond this moment in time. American leadership is once again being called on at yet another transformational time in history to help set a new course, a new framework for a rudderless world drifting in a sea of combustible dangers.

In engaging Iran, the Middle East, and the world, we must be wide in our scope, clear in our purpose, measured in our words, and strong in our actions. Yesterday's NIE should not be overstated, but it also must not be undervalued in shaping future policy with Iran and in the Middle East.

Make no mistake, the NIE sets in motion a series of ripple effects that will have serious consequences. This should be welcome news for the United States and the world.

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

Mr. President, on December 1, America lost a great and innovative educator and a wonderfully decent human being when Sally Smith passed away this week at the age of 78. Sally was the founder and director of one of America's most important teaching institutions, the Lab School in Washington, DC.

Sally was a New York City native, and longtime resident of the District. She graduated in 1950 from Bennington College, and received a master's degree in education from New York University in 1955. In 1967, inspired by her own son's difficulties in learning, she founded the Lab School.

Beginning with just her son and three other students, the Lab School has now grown into an internationally renowned school for students with learning disabilities. Sally's fundamental belief was that all children, no matter what the disability, have the potential, ability and ingenuity to learn. Sally created a unique and innovative learning environment where students are given the tools and encouragement needed to fulfill their goals. She also provided through the Lab School the resources needed for others to teach students with disabilities.

In 1976, Sally became a professor at the School of Education at American University, where she ran the master's degree program specializing in learning disabilities. The Lab School serves as the primary training site for most graduate students in the program. Sally is the author of 10 books on education. Her teaching techniques have been showcased in a four film series on PBS.

My wife Lilibet and I are privileged to have been actively involved with the Lab School over the last 11 years, and we came to know and admire Sally. She was an American original and represented the best of our society.

Like all of Sally's many friends, Lilibet and I offer our prayers to the Smith family. She leaves the world a better place than she found it. She will be missed by that world.

Sally is survived by her sons, Randall, Nick and Gary Smith; a sister; and one granddaughter.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Kenneth Thomas Novel. Kenneth passed away after a battle with liver cancer on November 14 at his home in Gaithersburg, MD. He was 60 years of age.

Kenneth was born in New York City, NY, on January 30, 1947. He was a Vietnam veteran who served with the ``Screaming Eagles'' of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam in 1968. On November 20, Kenneth Novel was buried with full military honors at the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery.

Kenneth was an owner of O Salon in Georgetown along with his brother, Robert. His career spanned more than 38 years between Washington, DC and Aspen, CO.

Kenneth Novel was a devoted family man. He is survived by his loving wife Theresa; three children, Lisa Hackett, Simone and Anthony; two grandchildren, Jake and Luke; and two brothers, Gene and Robert Novel.

Lilibet and I, and all of Kenneth's friends, offer our prayers to Theresa and the Novel family. Kenneth was an American patriot who believed in his country and fought for his country. America owes him our thanks for his contributions and sacrifice. He will be missed by many of us.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Marine Corps 2LT Seth Pierce of Lincoln, NE. Lieutenant Pierce died on October 21 from injuries he sustained in an automobile accident on base at Quantico, VA, where he was stationed. He was 23 years old.

Lieutenant Pierce graduated from Lincoln Southeast High School in 2002, where he led the relay team to a State championship in 2001. After graduating from Arizona State University in 2006, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant into the U.S. Marine Corps.

All of Nebraska is proud of Lieutenant Pierce's service to our country, as well as that of the thousands of brave men and women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Lieutenant Pierce is remembered as a devoted son, brother, and grandson. He is survived by his parents Larry and Linda; his brother Aaron, and his grandparents, Edwin and Ruth Steffens, and Luther and Esther Pierce.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring 2LT Seth Pierce.

Mr. President, today, I rise in support of the DREAM Act, introduced by Senators Durbin, Lugar, and myself. Each year, thousands of hard-working students who graduate from American high schools are unable to attend college or serve in the military because of their illegal immigration status.

These young people were brought to the United States by adults who were breaking the law. In America, we have never held children responsible for their parents' sins. It is not the habit of the United States to punish children for the actions of their parents. Let's not start now.

Many have been in our country nearly their entire lives, and most have received their primary education here. They contribute to their communities and our country by earning higher education or serving in the Armed Forces. It is in our national interest that they be given the opportunity to do so. These young people were forced into an unfortunate position, which have made them outcasts in our society, yet they have proven their potential and ambition by meeting the several requirements necessary to be eligible under the DREAM Act for legal status. We need more young people to contribute to our country, not less.

The DREAM Act would make it possible to bring these young people out of shadows and give them the opportunity to contribute, work, and pay taxes--giving back to the communities in which they were raised.

The DREAM Act is not amnesty. It is a narrowly tailored piece of legislation that would help only a limited, select group of young people earn legal status. This is not an incentive for more illegal immigrants to enter our country. To be eligible for legal status under the DREAM Act, you must have good moral character, have graduated from an American high school, entered the country under the age of 15, and have been in the United States for at least 5 years. There is an end date to the DREAM Act.

The current system punishes children for the mistakes of their parents. The DREAM Act will provide a legal path for undocumented students to pursue the American dream based on their own accomplishments and hard work.

Immigration is a very complicated and difficult issue, for many reasons. Partly because we have deferred this issue for years. We have refused to take a responsible position on all the different aspects of immigration reform--inc1uding the DREAM Act.

Obviously border security is the core, the beginning of immigration reform. I am not aware of any Senator who has questioned or contested that point. In July, the Senate approved $3 billion in funding for border security and immigration enforcement--totaling $40.6 billion in overall funding for homeland security. From fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 2006, the budget for the Border Patrol has tripled from $362 million to $1.6 billion.

That is not the debate. The debate, of course, resides around the difficult issues, the 11 to 12 million illegals now in this country. The debate elicits great and deep emotions and passion--and it should. We were sent here to deal with the great challenges of our time, to resolve the issues, find solutions, not go halfway. That is leadership.

Currently, we have provided no leadership for the American people. We have not had the courage to deal with it because it is political, because it is emotional, because it cuts across every sector and every line of our society. It is about national security. It is about autonomy and our future. It is about our society, our schools, our hospitals. That is difficult.

Who are we helping with the current situation that we have today? People stay in the shadows, we don't collect taxes, we don't have the complete involvement in communities that we have always had from our immigrants. There is a national security element to this. There is a law enforcement element to it, and there is certainly an economic element to it. Are we really winning? No, we are losing. We are losing everywhere.

You can take pieces of each and pick and choose which might make you more comfortable politically, but it doesn't work that way. It is all wrapped into the same enigma. It is woven into the same fabric. That is what we are dealing with.

It is leadership to take on the tough issues. Immigration is one of those issues which tests and defines a society. It tests and defines a country. And the precious glue that has been indispensable in holding this country together for over 200 years has been common interests and mutual respect. I don't know of an issue that is facing our country today that is more important, that is framed in that precious glue concept more precisely than this issue. Crafting something for the future, for our history, for our children, and for our society--that is what it is about.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of United States Army PFC Christopher Pfeifer of Nebraska. Private First Class Pfeifer died on September 25 from injuries he sustained near Kamu, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his unit on August 17. He was 21 years old.

Private First Class Pfeifer grew up in the small town of Spalding, NE, where he played eight-man football at Spalding Academy, as well as the drums in the band. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 91st Cavalry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Schweinfurt, Germany. All the flags in Spalding, a town of about 600 people, are at half-mast in honor of Private First Class Pfeifer.

Private First Class Pfeifer is remembered as a devoted husband, son, and brother. Sadly, he was denied the chance to become a proud father; his wife Karen gave birth to a baby girl the day after his death.

All of Nebraska is proud of Private First Class Pfeifer's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition to his wife and newborn daughter, he is survived by his parents, Mike and Dar, his brother Aaron, and his sister Nicki.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring PFC Christopher Pfeifer.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge my friend, the junior Senator from Virginia, and also recognize his leadership, not just on this issue that he has framed over the last few minutes on which the Senate will be voting, as we did in July, but his years of contributions to this country--specifically his efforts on behalf of our military. I think most of us recognize the distinguished record of Senator Jim Webb, that service to his country. We appreciate that, and in particular his leadership on this amendment is important.

Senator Webb and I wrote this amendment many months ago. We introduced it on the floor of the Senate in July. We received 56 bipartisan votes for it. As Senator Webb has noted in his explanation of what this amendment does, it is relevant to our Armed Forces, to our country, and to our future. I wish to take a little time to expand on a couple of the points Senator Webb has made.

First, a democracy of 300 million people, the greatest democracy in the world, the oldest living democracy in the world, finds itself in a situation today where we are asking about 1 percent of our citizens to carry all the burden, make all the sacrifices. We will be dealing with this issue for many years to come, because the consequences of what has been going on are that we are doing great damage to our military force structure, great damage to our Army and our Marines.

Senator Webb noted some examples. These are not isolated episodes. The fact is, you cannot grind down your people, you cannot grind down your force structure as we have been doing to our force structure over the last years--redeployment after redeployment, and longer and longer deployments.

We know, because our generals and admirals tell us, that this will come to an end sometime next spring, the rate of redeployments. Why is that the case? That is the case because we can't sustain the force structure we have assigned in Iraq today. It is not because I say it or Senator Webb says it, but our professional military leaders say it.

It doesn't do us much good to go back and review the mistakes we have made over the last 5 years, first when we invaded and occupied a country. The fact is, we never had enough force structure in that country. Many Senators, including the distinguished ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, our friend John McCain, noted that. He still talks about it, as many of us do. This administration refused to take the counsel of the then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Eric Shinseki, when he, in open hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked the question: What will it take, General, to invade, occupy, and help stabilize Iraq? He said it would take hundreds of thousands of American forces.

He was right. He was right. But this administration chose not to listen to the Chief of Staff of the Army, who knew far more about the details of manpower requirements than anyone in the White House.

We are not going to go back and unwind all that series of bad decisions. We are where we are, and we are in a mess in Iraq today by any dynamic, any measurement, any qualifications. We heard about that, I think in some detail, as we probed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker's testimony last week--two distinguished Americans. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are two of our best. But the military doesn't set policy. The civilian leadership sets policy. So we hand that off to the military. They salute; they say, Yes, sir. Now, you go implement the policy.

What we are addressing in this amendment is not only a basic component of fairness in how you treat your people--because, after all, as we know, it is people who represent the greatest resource of an institution, of a country, of a society. When you grind those people down to a point where they just cannot be effective, but when the morale is gone, when they leave the institution as we are seeing happen in the Army and Marines, when you are 15,000 short of Army captains and lieutenant colonels and majors, and senior enlisted, and story after story--every Senator in this body can relate these specific stories like I had in my office yesterday. A Marine Corps officer, couple of years in Iraq, 14 years in the Marines, got out. He loved the Marines. It pulled his heart out to leave the Marines.

I said, Why did you leave?

He said, Sir, I tried to balance my family life. The last time I got back from Iraq my youngest daughter said, Daddy, I am going to tape you to the refrigerator so you don't have to leave again.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said in his confirmation hearing a few months ago, and I quote from Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

I am concerned about the number of deployments, the time

when they're home--in fact, even when they are home, there's

training associated with that, so they spend

weeks, if not months, out of their own house, again, away

from their families, and I believe we've got to relieve that.

That is the end of the quote from the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So, are we really asking so much here when we say that our brave fighting men and women, who are bearing all the burden, carrying all the sacrifice for this country, that 1 percent of our society, that we say they ought to have at least the same amount of downtime off as they serve in a war zone in combat? Is that outrageous?

We in this town are very good at abstractions. We talk about policies. We act like moving men and brigades in combat--that somehow this is a chess game. Somehow these people are objects.

No, humanity is always the underlying dynamic of the world and life and it always will be. As Senator Webb has often said: Who speaks for the military? The National spokesmen.

Their leaders are appointed by the President. They have spokesmen, they are Governors, if no one else. But who speaks for the rifleman? Who speaks for the people whom we ask to go fight and die and their families?

Now, let's be very clear about another issue. As Senator Webb has noted, this certainly is within the constitutional authority and responsibility of the Congress of the United States. Senator Webb said article I of the Constitution is about the Congress. Section 8 of the Constitution, in article I, speaks specifically to Congress's responsibilities. We can have disagreements about policies and strategies, and that is appropriate, should be, absolutely, in a democracy. But let's not be confused about our responsibilities as well.

The fact is, as General Shinseki warned us in his comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee before we invaded Iraq, that it would take hundreds of thousands of American soldiers.

What has happened is we have a mission that does not match our manpower capabilities. So what is this administration's answer? Keep grinding down the people out there who have been fighting and dying. Keep grinding them down more because we do not have any choice. Are you going to suit the Boy Scouts up on the weekends?

Where is the manpower going to come from? So the easy answer is-- because who speaks for the rifleman? Who speaks for the military? You keep asking them to do more. You keep pushing more down on them.

By the way, the so-called surge the President of the United States announced to America in January--by the way, I do not find the term ``surge'' in any military manuals. Surge is not a policy, it is not a strategy, it is a tactic.

But the President said: This is temporary. That escalation of troops, that 30,000 more troops on top of the 130,000 troops they already had over there, that is temporary. Because we are going to buy time for the Iraqi Government to find an accommodation so there can be political reconciliation. In the end, that is all that counts. As General Petraeus and everybody, every one of our great generals has said, there is no military solution in Iraq.

General Petraeus and every general has said that. They know it better than anyone knows it. The only solution in Iraq is going to come from, must come from, some political accommodation resulting in a political reconciliation.

So let's buy more time, let's grind those guys down more. Well, it will automatically come to some kind of an end. But in the process, what are we doing to our society, to our country, to our Armed Forces, that is going to take years to rebuild, just as General Schwarzkopf and General Powell and other great generals after Vietnam, they stayed in the military and rebuilt the military after what we had done to it during Vietnam.

This is a very modest step forward, of clear thinking. This is relevant. It is rational. This has at least a modicum of humanity in it. If we do not take these steps, the consequences we are going to continue to face are going to be severe.

I know the questions, the concerns on the other side of this issue are appropriate. Is this not a back-door way of trying to micromanage the war, micromanage our force structure? Well, the fact is, as I have already noted, we have inverted the logic. In order to carry out a mission or a policy or strategy, you have to match the resources for that. Those resources were never matched to that mission.

So the easy answer for all of us in Washington, and 99 percent of the American people, is: Well, let those guys over there do more. So we have 15-month deployments, in some cases they are 18-month deployments, in some cases they are longer than that. So what if they go over there three times.

That is not a good enough answer. That is a failed answer. That is irresponsible.

So I hope our colleagues take a hard look at this, and I hope they would give some intense thought to what we are doing, not only for the immediate term but for the long term. This is essential for our country. This has ramifications, societal implications that go far beyond our force structure.

I am very honored to be the original cosponsor and coauthor of this amendment with my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Virginia.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to express my sympathy over the loss of United States Army CPT Scott Shimp of Nebraska. Captain Shimp was killed in a military helicopter crash during a training exercise in northeastern Alabama on September 11. He was 28 years old.

Captain Shimp grew up in the small town of Bayard, NE. A 1998 graduate and salutatorian of his class at Bayard High School, he also played football, ran track, sang in the choir, and was an Eagle Scout. It was his lifelong dream to serve his country in the U.S. military.

I had the privilege of nominating Captain Shimp to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. In 2002 he graduated as part of the first post- September 11 class. Captain Shimp served two tours of duty in Iraq and was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan in 2009. He was company commander of Company C, 4th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division.

We are proud of Captain Shimp's service to our country, as well as the thousands of brave Americans serving in the Armed Forces.

Our sympathies are with his parents, Curtis and Teri Shimp; his brother Chad; and his sister Misty.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring CPT Scott Shimp.

Mr. Presdient, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Navy Petty Officer First Class Jeffrey Chaney of Omaha, NE. Petty Officer First Class Chaney was killed on July 17 by an improvised explosive device in Salah Ad Din Province, Iraq. He was 35 years old.

Petty Officer First Class Chaney graduated from Bellevue West High School in 1990. He enlisted in the Navy in 1993 and spent 4 years of his 14-year Navy career as a recruiter. Petty Officer First Class Chaney's passion for serving his country made him a strong recruiter. He was even able to recruit his brother Randy Chaney to the Navy.

Petty Officer First Class Chaney was assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 11, based at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA. His experience with ordnance disposal led to other experiences. He worked with Secret Service for President George H.W. Bush's 80th birthday celebration in 2004, where he met the former President and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. He also assisted Secret Service with security during the 2004 Presidential election and met both President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. Petty Officer First Class Chaney had been in Iraq for two months. We are proud of Petty Officer First Class Chaney's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq.

In addition to his brother Randy, Petty Officer First Class Chaney is survived by his daughter Brianna Chaney of Omaha, his father Larry Chaney of Bloomington, MN, his mother Connie Chaney of Omaha, and brother Jim Ecker of Oakland, IA.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Petty Officer First Class Jeffrey Chaney.

Sergeant Jacob Schmuecker

Mr. President, I also rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army National Guard SGT Jacob Schmuecker of Norfolk, NE. Sergeant Schmuecker was killed on July 21 by an improvised explosive device in Balad, Iraq. He was 27 years old.

Sergeant Schmuecker graduated from West Holt High School in 1999, where he was a linebacker and defensive end on the football team. He attended Northeast Community College before he joined the Nebraska Army National Guard in 2001 as a member of the 134th Infantry Detachment in Lincoln, NE.

He was mobilized for service in Iraq in August 2006 with the Nebraska National Guard's 755th Reconnaissance and Decontamination Company based in O'Neill, NE.

Sergeant Schmuecker was a model leader. He had a strong concern for the men that he led and hoped that if anything were to happen, that it would happen to him. He inspired his brother Chris Shepperd to enlist and he would go on to serve in Iraq as well. We are proud of Sergeant Schmuecker's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq.

Sergeant Schmuecker is survived by his wife Lisa and their three children, his parents Rodney and Patricia Schmuecker, three brothers, and three sisters.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SGT Jacob Schmuecker.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to support the Levin- Reed amendment. As we know, Iraq is the most important issue facing our country today. The core challenge in Iraq is the cycle of violence, despair, and retribution that is tearing Iraq apart and threatening wider regional instability. There is no significant progress in Iraq. By any measurement, the situation in Iraq is getting worse as each week passes. Prime Minister al-Maliki's Government is essentially paralyzed and dysfunctional, in part by boycotts and sectarian rivalries and an intense sectarian war.

The Interior Ministry in Iraq, which controls Iraq's police forces, is still a disaster and does not function as a national ministry. Horrific violence in Iraq is spreading beyond Baghdad. Yesterday, car bombs and attacks in Kirkuk and Diyala Province killed more than 100 and injured almost 200 Iraqis. Kirkuk is an area of Iraq in the northern part, Kurdistan, that has been considered by this administration as one of the most secure areas of Iraq. Recent events in Kurdistan over the last few months have shown otherwise. Increasingly, regions that were previously seen as relatively stable and secure, such as the Kurdish area, are now being engulfed by violence. The southern four provinces in Iraq near Basra, which contains most of Iraq's oil and Iraq's only port and outlet to the sea, are out of control. Shiite militias control the southern four provinces of Iraq, including the most significant oil reserves in Iraq's one outlet to the sea. Shiite militias and criminal gangs control these provinces and today even demand tribute, and we pay it. The Iraqi Government pays tribute to Shia militias to use Iraq's primary port. The last remaining pipeline into Baghdad has been blown up, crippling Baghdad's access to oil, and there are no operating refineries in Baghdad. Hence, the product that comes to Baghdad today is trucked in from Kuwait. This is the nation that has the third largest oil reserves in the world. The green zone is being attacked daily.

Last week, 9 people were killed, including Americans, and over 30 wounded inside the green zone. These daily attacks on the green zone by mortar fire, rocket fire increase.

I have listened today to some of my colleagues argue that the surge strategy--the surge strategy--has only just begun; why don't we give it a chance to work; we are at a very early stage; we must give the President more time.

Let me remind our colleagues it has been more than 6 months since the President of the United States announced to the Nation on January 10 the decision to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops into Iraq. That was the beginning of the surge, not now. It has been more than 5 months since these additional U.S. troops began arriving in Iraq in early February. We have had months to judge the situation in Iraq. Only last week, the President reported to Congress that there has been no progress--no progress--on any of the political benchmarks in Iraq. The violence that is tearing Iraq apart has intensified and spread over the last 6 months. The current strategy is failing, and the so-called surge that some of my colleagues refuse to recognize that began almost 6 months ago has cost 532 American men and women their lives since that began. We have lost more than 3,600 Americans who have died and over 26,000 wounded over the last 4\1/2\ years.

We must change our policy in Iraq. Central to our new strategy must be diplomacy, regional engagement, and the

involvement of the international community, all of these coming together within the framework of a new policy, using all of the instruments of power to help achieve Iraqi political accommodation-- political accommodation. We are captive to a cycle of violence. We cannot break out of the cycle of violence. More troops will not do that. We have put burdens on our troops and asked them to make sacrifices and do things they cannot achieve in the course of finding an answer to break the cycle of violence. It is bigger than the military. General Petraeus has said so. As a matter of fact, General Petraeus has said there will be no military solution in Iraq. Every general I have met in my five trips to Iraq, every general I have met here in and out of uniform, has said there will not be--cannot be--a military solution.

I have cosponsored the Levin-Reed amendment because it requires that the United States move toward a comprehensive policy on Iraq--a comprehensive policy on Iraq--not just continuing to feed American troops into the middle of a civil war, which is clearly not working, but something in addition to our military security. That new policy must be centered on diplomacy and helping achieve Iraqi political accommodation to get to political reconciliation.

This amendment is responsible. It is comprehensive, forward-looking, compelling, and not all that different, incidentally, from what my other colleagues are offering on the floor of the Senate as options. Yes, it requires a phased, responsible reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq. I say again, a reduction--not a withdrawal--of our forces. No one I know is calling for any sort of precipitous withdrawal or precipitous action to take America out of Iraq now. We couldn't do that anyway. Even if we wanted to withdraw precipitously or quickly, the reality of the logistics would prevent it. The fact is, we are where we are. We have national interests in the Middle East. We have national interests in Iraq. We should not confuse the issue that we debate today. We are not advocating a cut-and-run strategy. I am not sure what cut and run means. It is catchy. It is good sloganeering. But I have yet to hear anyone come to the Senate floor and say: I am for cutting and running. Those who use that term or accuse others of employing that term should define what that means.

Of all the resolutions I am aware of that have been introduced in the Senate on this issue, none that I am aware of is a so-called cut-and- run amendment.

We are talking about a transition in the mission being carried out by U.S. forces in Iraq. A policy, a strategy. Let's make something else clear. The military does not make policy. The military implements policy. The Congress is part of making that policy. Constitutionally we have a role with the President in helping frame and make policy. The military has input into that policy, as they must and as they should, but once the policy is given to the military, they can't alter the policy. They are captive to policy. That is constitutionally the way it is and the way it should be. We are talking about a new policy, a new strategy. We have a legitimate mission to carry out in Iraq, and those various missions are critical to our security, and hopefully, at some point, the stability of Iraq. The Levin-Reed amendment focuses solely on those missions and the transitions of those missions: Counterterrorism, targeting terrorists and other global organizations; training Iraqi forces, protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and facilities, helping maintain territorial integrity of Iraq.

As I have said, nearly all of the other significant amendments I am aware of that have been introduced on the floor of the Senate on Iraq, including the Warner-Lugar amendment, the Salazar-Alexander amendment focused largely on the same limited mission, as the Levin-Reed amendment, as does the Nelson-Collins amendment, on a limited mission. There is an emerging consensus on how our military mission should transition in Iraq as well. Our amendment includes a timeline and would require that this shift in our military mission be completed by April 30 of next year.

Our amendment is not alone in establishing a timeline. Again, the other significant amendments on Iraq also have timelines. The Warner- Lugar amendment recommends beginning the military transition no later than December 31, 2007. That is a timeline. The Salazar-Alexander amendment sets as the sense of the Congress that the transition be completed by the first quarter of 2008. Now, that is a timeline. There is yet another emerging consensus on establishing a timeline to transition our military mission in Iraq. Our amendment also respects that only military professionals--the generals, those who have the responsibility of carrying out the policy; not making the policy, but carrying it out--those professionals determine how many troops will be needed to carry out our limited military mission in Iraq.

So the talk I hear more than occasionally on the Senate floor that somehow the Congress is micromanaging the war is not correct; that we are micromanaging the army is not correct.

Once again, our amendment, the Levin-Reed amendment, sets policy of the military mission in Iraq. That is policy. What is the mission? What is the strategic, diplomatic mission of employing America's power and prestige in Iraq? That is the policy. But the scope of the reduction-- the reduction, not the withdrawal but the reduction--of U.S. forces in Iraq will be determined by, and needs to be determined by, our military professionals based on a troop-to-task analysis; not the Congress, not the committees telling the generals how to do anything.

Troop to task is a very simple concept. You connect the requirements of your mission with the force structure needed. We are way out of balance. We have been out of balance since we invaded Iraq in March of 2003. We never had enough force structure. Some of the same people on the floor of the Senate who are now saying: Well, let's listen to the generals, where were they when the generals warned this administration that we didn't have enough men and women and force before we went into Iraq, I didn't hear many of them talking about how much faith we should put in our generals then.

The former Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General Shinseki, said it. He said it openly in the Presiding Officer's Armed Services Committee. When asked the question: What would it take in manpower to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help stabilize and secure Iraq, General Shinseki said: It would take hundreds of thousands of American troops.

This administration completely dismissed that as wildly--I believe as the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the time said--wildly off the mark. Well, he wasn't off the mark, I say to my colleagues. He was exactly right. He was exactly right.

So we have never had the forces to match the mission. That is not new. Some of us may be coming to that conclusion for the first time, but it is not new. We have never had the force structure to match the mission. That is not the fault of the generals. That is not the fault of the military. That is the fault of policymakers.

Our amendment also respects that only military professionals can determine those numbers. The scope of the reduction would stay firmly in the hands of the military professionals. This approach is responsible. Not one U.S. general today will tell you that there can be, there will be, there is a military solution in Iraq.

Then the next question is--and a statement being made often on the floor of the Senate is: Well, we need to buy the Iraqis time. We need to give the Maliki government time. That is true. That is why we have benchmarks. That is why we have some sense of where this is going? Are we making progress or not making progress? Is it getting better or is it getting worse? Now, 4\1/2\ years into this, we should have some measurements of giving the government time, but time for what? What is the end game as more Americans sacrifice their lives and a half trillion dollars of America's taxpayers' money has sunk into the sands of Iraq? We are buying time for what? For a political reconciliation brought about by the Iraqis themselves to be able to functionally govern their country with some sense of stability and security. That is going the other way. That hasn't gotten better; it has gotten worse by every measure. So we continue to buy time with American blood and American treasure, for what? For

what? No one wants to answer that question, by the way. We end it with we have to buy time, but the additional part of that equation is: Buy time for what? Do we buy time for another 2, 3, or 4 years?

It is also clear that the generals have said when April comes, and there is a timeline already that is built in--whether we ever deal with it or not in the Congress--there is a timeline built in, and it is called manpower. It is called deployment rotations.

We are pushing our young men and women now to 18-month rotation, and some, by the way, are longer than that because of what is known as a stopgap measure where the Secretary of Defense can stop anyone from leaving a war zone based on the speciality of his or her MOS or job. So we are actually having people stay there longer than 18 months. But now it is 18 months, even though the Secretary of Defense testified in January before the Senate Armed Services Committee that we need to get back to 12 months.

Senator Webb and I and others, a bipartisan group of Senators / last week had two amendments on that issue. We couldn't get the required 60 votes to go back to a 12-month deployment. So now it is 15 months, and we are pushing even 18 months.

The generals have told us that when this spring comes, there is no more give in those deployment rotations. There is nothing left. So there is a timeline built in already. Whether any of us want to acknowledge that or introduce that, that is a reality.

Any change to policy in Iraq cannot be done in isolation, separate or disconnected, from the broader sense of dynamics in Iraq and the Middle East. That is why this amendment requires a phased reduction be conducted as part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement to Iraq's neighbors and the international community.

I am very pleased to note that today the announcement came from the State Department that the United States is now prepared to hold new direct talks with Iran. That is progress, not because Iran wants to be our friend. Of course not. But Iran is a significant power in the Middle East. It is working against our interests in the Middle East. We must engage Iran. I have been calling for dialog with all Middle East nations, including Iran and Syria, or over 3 years. A constructive regional framework for Iraq can only be achieved through sustained diplomacy, not hit or miss, not ``if we have time.''

A vital element of this comprehensive diplomatic strategy must be to internationalize Iraq through an international mediator under the auspices of the U.N. to engage all of Iraq's political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders.

I first called for an international mediator in a letter to President Bush in May. Since then, I pressed this issue with Secretary Rice last week, our National Security Adviser, Steve Hadley, 2 weeks ago, and again today with the United Nations Secretary General. It is time to take the American face off Iraq's political process.

The United States is seen as the occupier in Iraq. We must have a new strategy that will further invest the region and the rest of the world to helping stabilize Iraq, reversing Iraq's slide into chaos. And it is chaos, Mr. President. I hear on the floor of the Senate, gee, if we changed our mission, if we moved in any different direction, if we reduced our forces, if we did anything different, Iraq would end in chaos. Some of my colleagues must not understand what is going on in Iraq. We have chaos. We have real chaos in Iraq today. That means there are no good options today. The optics here should be clear, and we should base our new policies and our new strategies on those clear optics that Iraq is in chaos today.

Creating an international mediator would help build some new common interests in the region and in the world. This amendment represents the core elements of a different U.S. strategy for Iraq, a strategy that more accurately understands the grim realities we face today, that we will face at the end of this year, that we will face next spring, and we will face next year. The question is whether the President and Congress will come together to present a new policy for Iraq that can be supported by the American people and protect and advance America's interests in Iraq and the Middle East.

We are coming dangerously close to the moment when the American people will demand that we leave Iraq and pullout of the Middle East. Almost 70 percent of the American people today, by every measurement, say enough is enough. This is not in the U.S. interest nor the world's to leave Iraq that way. That is why the United States needs a new strategy for Iraq now.

Well into our fifth year in Iraq, we are beyond nonbinding language of resolutions. We are beyond calling for new plans or new reports. We are beyond sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. We have to understand where we are today. We are in a very dangerous position in Iraq. Our policy in Iraq has been a disaster. Why are we kidding ourselves otherwise? By any measurement, it is a disaster. It must change now. The time for suggestions is over. If we do not believe our current policy is worthy of the sacrifices being made by our troops, then it is wrong to simply say we will wait until this fall to change course or let's hang on for 2 or 3 more months to see what happens.

We know what is happening. We know what is happening today, we know what has been happening, and we know what is going to happen tomorrow.

I am grateful for the opportunity to express myself on this amendment. I also appreciate the opportunity to cosponsor this responsible amendment with my colleagues. I note again it is a bipartisan amendment, and I hope all my colleagues in the Senate will take a look at all the different options and amendments and spend some time on each because they are each worthy of time, but in the end, the consistency of the amendments that have been presented so far are about one thing, and you can paint it any way you want, but that is a change of mission in Iraq and a new policy in Iraq.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SPC Dustin Workman II of Greenwood, NE. Specialist Workman was killed on June 28 by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad. He was 19 years old.

Specialist Workman graduated from Ashland-Greenwood High School in 2005. Faculty at Ashland-Greenwood remember his talent for writing and his love of books, though not necessarily the ones assigned to him, his skill in mechanical working, and most importantly, his hard work and commitment to finishing school. From the time he was a freshman at Ashland-Greenwood, Specialist Workman's teachers noticed a strong desire to serve in the Army.

Specialist Workman enlisted with the Army and served with B Company, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Carson, CO. We are proud of Specialist Workman's service to our country, as well as the thousands of other brave Americans serving in Iraq.

Specialist Workman is survived by his parents Dustin and Valerie, younger brother Korey, and younger sister Krysta.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SPC Dustin Workman II.