Floor Statements

Mr. President. I rise today to join Senator Durbin in introducing the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act.

Global climate change has implications beyond economic, environmental and energy policies. It has the potential to affect every aspect of our daily lives. It is because of the possible broad impact on U.S. interests at home and abroad that I have agreed to be the lead Republican co-sponsor on the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act.

Senator Durbin and I differ on policy initiatives designed to reduce the impact of climate change. We do agree, however, on the need to assess potential impacts of the changing climate on U.S. national security interests so that our Nation can develop responsible, forward- thinking policies that ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the American people.

There will always be uncertainties and incomplete information in climate science. This is the nature of scientific discovery; it is constantly evolving, constantly gaining new insights and explanations of our natural world. National policy must be crafted based on what is known, but also must be able to incorporate the uncertainties of what is yet to be learned.

Our bill provides a foundation for future policy options. It instructs the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a National Intelligence Estimate to assess the potential geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications for U.S. national security. It asks for a risk assessment of a broad array of impacts based on current scientific understanding. This bill is intended to gather information about the national security implications of projected climate change, so that in the future, Congress can develop policies that protect U.S. interests around the world.

I have said that the debate is not about whether we should take action, but rather what kind of action we should take. It would be irresponsible to attempt to develop a response to the physical effects of climate change without knowing what the potential consequences are. Our actions should always be based on a comprehensive base of scientific information and knowledge. Without this kind of information, we cannot effectively determine what the risks to U.S. national security will be. We cannot realistically design policies that mitigate these risks without this information. General Charles F. ``Chuck'' Wald, USAF, ret., former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command, has stated, ``This bipartisan legislation takes on an important emerging policy issue--the impact of climate change and national security. I support its call for a national intelligence estimate of the topic and authorizing the Secretary of Defense to conduct further research on the military impact of climate change.''

As I have said for many years, the way forward is to responsibly address the issue of climate change with a national strategy that incorporates economic, environmental and energy priorities. These issues are inextricably linked and changes to one will effect the other two. These priorities are also an integral part of U.S. national security. Risk assessment is essential to putting our national resources in the places where they will be most effective. This is even more important when assessing risk to national security. This legislation will provide information we need to continue to help make our country secure in the years to come.

Mr. President, there will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. There will not be a military solution to Iraq. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. It does not belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.

We can help the people of Iraq, as we have been helping them over the last 4 years, with a tremendous amount of our American blood and treasure. We have much invested in Iraq. America has strategic interests in the Middle East. And we will continue to help the people of Iraq, as we will continue to protect our interests and those of our allies in the Middle East.

But the future of Iraq, however, will be determined by the Iraqi people. The future of Iraq will be determined by a political accommodation by the people in Iraq, which will result in a political resolution that will be supported by the Iraqi people, its regional neighbors, and other powers, including the United States.

After 4 years in Iraq, America's policy there should be designed to gradually pull the United States further away from the day-to-day responsibilities, those day-to-day responsibilities of defending Iraq and de facto governance of Iraq, and turning over those responsibilities to the Iraqis, not escalating--not escalating--our military involvement in Iraq.

Today, we are headed in the opposite direction. I will not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy in Iraq.

We are now in our fifth year in an active war in Iraq. Iraq is more dangerous today than at any time in the last 4 years. And--puzzling-- the administration says, we are making real progress in Iraq. So if we are making

real progress in Iraq, then why are we putting more and more American combat troops into Iraq at the same time our allies are leaving or have already left?

The President's strategy is taking America deeper and deeper into this quagmire, with no exit strategy.

In January, we were told that 21,500 more U.S. troops would be sent to Iraq. This month, we learned that as many as 7,000 more U.S. troops, in addition to the 21,500, would be sent to Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the President's recent decision to escalate our military involvement could require as many as 48,000 additional U.S. troops in Iraq.

In January, the administration said progress on the Iraq war would be measurable by this summer. We have heard that at 6-month intervals for the last 2 years in oversight committee hearings. But now we are being told that additional troops could be required in Iraq well into next year.

This strategy to deepen America's military involvement in Iraq will not bring a resolution in Iraq. It will only continue to undermine America's standing in Iraq and the Middle East, complicating and limiting our diplomatic options, and doing further damage to our military. And we continue to finance and build the most powerful and unaccountable mercenary armies in history, like Blackwater.

We cannot continue down a path that is destroying our military and continuing to place our men and women in uniform in Iraq in the middle of a civil war.

In February, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, reported to Congress that there is now--his word--a ``significant'' risk that our military will not be able to respond to an emerging crisis in another part of the world. Why did he say that? It is because we are overburdened, overstretched. We are breaking our force structure--third and fourth tours.

Recently, the inspector general of the Defense Department issued a report on our National Guard. Our National Guard--our Army National Guard in America is broken. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Schoomaker, has made similar, recent comments in open testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

It is now time for the Congress to step forward and establish responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military involvement in Iraq. That is our responsibility. Need I remind our colleagues in this body, the Congress of the United States is a coequal branch of Government with the President of the United States? We not only have moral obligations but we have constitutional responsibilities.

To hear some of my colleagues say we should dispense with this ``frivolous'' debate because the President has threatened a veto--what a waste of our time--if you logically follow that through, why do we need a Congress? Why don't we let the President make all the choices, make all the decisions? There are some, I suspect, in this administration who would like that, some in this country would like that. But we tried a monarchy once. It is not suited to America. There are separations of power. Of course there are. But there are three coequal branches of Government.

It is now time for the Congress to step forward, after a disastrous 4 years in Iraq. The language in the Senate supplemental bill does this in a responsible way. The Senate language does not cut off funds. It does not impose a precipitous withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This language establishes a limited U.S. military mission in Iraq: counterterrorism, training Iraqi forces, and protecting U.S. personnel. That is not new. We have heard that from this administration over the last 4 years. This was not dreamed up. This idea that somehow you do not support the troops if you do not continue, in a lemming-like way, to accept whatever this administration's policy is wrong. That is what is wrong, and that is dangerous.

This language establishes a limited U.S. military mission in Iraq that focuses on the things we should be doing, we can be doing. This new and responsible mission would pull our troops out of the middle of Iraq's civil war. Is that wrong? Is there something wrong with that-- asking these young men and women to put their lives on the line in the middle of a civil war in Baghdad, kicking down doors, with a bull's eye on their back--to pull them out of that? Is that wrong? Does that somehow display a cavalier attitude toward the support of our troops? I think not. I think just the opposite.

There is a timeline in the Senate language. But it does not establish a binding date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Let's get that clear. It would establish the goal--those are the terms, goal--a goal that U.S. forces not involved in this more limited military mission be redeployed by March 2008. Is there something wrong with that? That means March of 2008 is 5 years we will have been there--5 years. We will have done significant damage to our Marines and our Army and our National Guard by then.

We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned, and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies or plans or responsible. It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America's options on this point have always been limited.

I support the President's decision to initiate a new diplomatic strategy and support a regional diplomatic process on the future of Iraq that began on March 10 at the regional security conference in Baghdad. But the President must devote his attention to foster those efforts. As the Baker-Hamilton report made clear, we must develop a regional diplomatic strategy to achieve stability in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask for 60 seconds to conclude my remarks.

America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new center of gravity for this new century. The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars, and world standing has been devastating for our country.

The American people are demanding that we develop a bipartisan consensus for an honorable and responsible exit strategy from Iraq. If we fail to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder--one we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.

Our actions today in the Congress begin this effort.

Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SGT Wayne Cornell of Nebraska. Sergeant Cornell was killed in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was 26 years old.

Sergeant Cornell grew up in the small town of Holstein, NE. A 1999 graduate of Silver Lake High School, his teachers had little doubt that he would serve his country after graduation. He enlisted with the Army National Guard soon after graduation and was deployed to Bosnia and Afghanistan.

In 2006, Sergeant Cornell decided to continue his career in the Armed Forces and enlisted with the Regular Army. He was deployed to Iraq in February 2007 with the 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division based at Fort Riley, KS.

Sergeant Cornell was a deeply committed father and husband. He always put his family first in the decisions he made. The Army was his means to provide for his family, as well as serve his country. He and his wife Patricia had two children, Dameion and Zoie, and the family is expecting a third child in July.

In addition to his wife and children, Sergeant Cornell is survived by his father Larry Cornell, his mother Patricia Perrie, and sisters Jadeen Cornell and Janalle Gowlovech.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SGT Wayne Cornell.

I appreciate that.

Mr. President, just a brief response to the distinguished majority leader about motives as to debate on Iraq.

I don't know a Senator who has been clearer or more concise on this administration's positions on Iraq than the senior Senator from Nebraska. To suggest that some on this side are impeding or trying to protect the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, specifically escalating our military involvement in Iraq, is a bit off the mark.

The fact is, the minority leader is very clear in his purpose. I have supported that. Minority rights are the essence, the foundation of this body. The minority should have an opportunity to present their resolution or resolutions. It should not be dictated to by the majority.

Make it very clear, those on this side who have pushed for this debate are very clear in our position. I doubt if there is anyone who has been clearer than this Senator.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators Warner, Collins, and others, in offering this amendment to the continuing resolution.

Last week, Senators Collins, Snowe, Smith, Voinovich, Coleman, and myself sent a letter to the Senate leadership urging our distinguished majority and minority leaders to reach an agreement so the Senate could debate the war in Iraq.

We said, and I quote from that letter:

The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the

people of this country.

In the letter, we pledged to--again quoting the letter--``explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate on the Senate floor.'' That, of course, is why we are here today.

I, similar to my colleagues, am deeply disappointed that a full and open debate on Iraq remains stymied in the Senate. All Members--Members of both parties--have the right and responsibility to present their views and, if they choose, submit other resolutions regarding the war in Iraq.

I am also deeply disappointed that both sides have used procedural tactics in this process. My colleagues and I were assured that the leaders were committed to reaching an agreement on this debate. That has not yet happened, and I, similar to my colleagues, intend to do everything in my power as a Senator to ensure a full and open debate of the Iraq war on the Senate floor in front of the American people. We owe it to our soldiers and their families, and we owe it to the American people.

I wish to focus on one particular aspect of this debate and that has to do with the resolution itself--the relevancy and importance of Senate resolutions. In the last 15 years, there is ample, strong, and significant precedent in the Senate debating a President's military policies while troops are deployed overseas--Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo. In each of those situations, I and many of my colleagues here today in the Senate debated and most of us voted binding and nonbinding resolutions regarding U.S. military operations abroad. Many of these measures expressed opposition to the military operations, criticizing, for example, one, the open-ended nature of the deployment; two, the danger of mission creep or escalation of military involvement; three, the danger of deploying U.S. forces into sectarian conflict; and four, the failure of the President to consult with Congress.

It might be instructive to review some of the Senate's history on these recent debates regarding these recent resolutions. Let me begin with Bosnia.

In June of 1992, U.S. forces began to deploy to Bosnia. In December 1995, the United States was preparing to deploy substantial ground forces into Bosnia, roughly 20,000 American ground force combat troops, very similar to the number we are now looking at in the President's escalation of more American troops into Iraq today.

As a result of President Clinton's decision in 1995, the Senate considered Senate Concurrent Resolution 35, a resolution submitted by our colleague from Texas, the senior Senator, Mrs. Hutchison. This resolution was a nonbinding resolution. Again, this was a nonbinding resolution. This resolution said:

The Congress opposes President Clinton's decision to deploy

United States military ground forces into the Republic of

Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement the General Framework

Agreement for peace

in Bosnia. . . .

This resolution also said:

Congress strongly supports the United States military

personnel who may be ordered by the President to implement

the general framework for the peace in Bosnia.

So, therefore, it is saying we support our troops, but we disapprove of the President's policy to send more troops. This resolution also said it was a continuation of the previous debate on support of the troops already deployed.

As Senator Hutchison said on the Senate floor on December 13:

There are many of us who do not think that this is the

right mission, but who are going to go full force to support

our troops. In fact, we believe we are supporting our troops

in the most effective way by opposing this mission because we

think it is the wrong one. . . .

A month earlier in November 1995, Senator Hutchison framed the complexities of our military intervention in Bosnia in terms that are eerily relevant to today. She said:

I am very concerned that we are also setting a precedent

for our troops to be deployed on the ground in border

conflicts, in ethnic conflicts, in civil wars. . . .

Opposition to the President's policy but strong support for the U.S. military--this is similar to the debate we are having today on Iraq.

Senator Hutchison's resolution had 28 cosponsors, including our friends and colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Craig, Kyl, Lott, Bennett, Hatch, Shelby, and Stevens.

On December 13, 1995, 47 Senators voted in favor of Senator Hutchison's nonbinding resolution. That day, 47 Senators believed you could oppose the President's policy but still support our troops.

The next day, December 14, 1995, the Senate considered Senate Joint Resolution 44, a binding resolution introduced by Senator Dole. This resolution supported U.S. troops in Bosnia. This resolution had six cosponsors, including our colleagues, Senators McCain and Lieberman.

On December 14, 1995, the Senate adopted this resolution by a vote of 69 to 30. That was Bosnia in 1995.

Somalia: In December 1992, U.S. troops began to deploy to Somalia. Nearly a year later, in September 1993, the Senate debated the objectives, the mission, and strategy of our military deployment in Somalia. Speaking on the Senate floor on September 23, 1993, Senator McCain framed the debate when he said:

Somalia is a prime example of lofty ambitions gone awry.

Our service men and women have become . . . part of a mission

to build Somalia into a stable democracy--something,

incidentally, it has never been, and shows no sign of ever

becoming this decade.

The manner in which military force is to be used to further

this grandiose objective has been left unclear. Without a

clear military objective, our forces in Somalia have found

themselves involved in a situation where they cannot

distinguish between friend and foe. They have often been

presented with situations where they cannot even distinguish

between civilians and combatants.

On September 9, the Senate voted 90 to 7 to adopt a nonbinding--a nonbinding--sense-of-Congress resolution submitted by Senator Byrd. This resolution called on the President to outline the goals, objectives, and duration of the U.S. deployment in Somalia and said Congress believes the President ``should seek and receive congressional authorization in order for the deployment of U.S. forces to Somalia to continue.''

There are 11 cosponsors of the Byrd measure, including our colleagues, Senators McCain, Cochran, Bond, and Warner.

One month later, after the horrible death of 18 U.S. troops in early October, the Senate considered two binding measures to cut off funds, one introduced by Senator McCain and one by Senator Byrd.

On October 15, 1993, the McCain measure, which would have terminated further U.S. military operations in Somalia, was tabled 61 to 38. That same day, the Senate voted 76 to 23 to adopt the Byrd measure to cut off all funding in March 1994 for U.S. forces in Somalia.

There are two more very clear examples, such as the examples I have given on Somalia and Bosnia, that I could discuss--Haiti and Kosovo--in some detail, and I may do that later. But the point is, the facts are clear. There is clear precedent--clear precedent--for both binding and nonbinding resolutions, as well as legislation to redirect, condition or cut off funds for military operations, and this is at the same time we have and we had military forces in those countries.

So to argue, to state, to imply this is somehow not only irrelevant but unprecedented is not the case. The Congress has always had a responsibility, not just constitutionally but morally, to inject itself in the great debate of war.

Yes, I yield to Senator Warner.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.

In conclusion, I add that the American people have had enough of the misrepresentations, the politics, and the procedural intrigue in the Senate. I say again to our distinguished leaders of both our parties: It is your responsibility, as leaders of this body, to resolve this procedural dispute so that the Senate can have a full, fair, open debate on the war in Iraq. And I will continue to join my colleagues-- Senators Warner, Collins, Snowe, and others--in making every effort to bring up our resolution at every available opportunity until that debate occurs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of United States Army National Guard SGT Randy Matheny of Nebraska. Sergeant Matheny was killed in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated next to the vehicle he was in. He was 20 years old.

Sergeant Matheny was part of a close-knit family in McCook, NE. A 2004 graduate of McCook High School, Sergeant Matheny is remembered as a quiet but likable young man who enjoyed learning about auto technology and computers.

Following in the footsteps of two older siblings, he joined the Army in March, 2005 as a heavy-vehicle driver. His sister, Karen, is currently serving her second tour with the Army National Guard in Iraq. His brother, Paul, is a private first class in the regular Army. Sergeant Matheny had been serving in Iraq with the 1074th Transportation Company since early fall. We're proud of Sergeant Matheny's service to our country as well as the service of thousands of brave Americans who are currently serving in Iraq.

In addition to his brother and sister, Sergeant Matheny is survived by his father Gary Matheny; his mother Jan Collins, and her husband Duane Collins; and stepsisters Kori Collins and Laci Ingels.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Sergeant Randy Matheny.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army 1LT Jacob Fritz of Nebraska. Lieutenant Fritz was killed near Karbala, Iraq on January 20. He was 25 years old.

Lieutenant Fritz was raised on his family's farm near Verdon, NE. From a young age, Lieutenant Fritz knew he wanted to be a leader. After graduating from Dawson-Verdon High School in 2000, he followed through on this goal. I had the honor of nominating Lieutenant Fritz to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He graduated from the Academy in 2005. His brother, Daniel Fritz, 22, followed in his footsteps and is currently in his third year at West Point. Like his brother Jake, I had the privilege of nominating Dan to West Point.

Lieutenant Fritz was leading a unit of more than 30 soldiers in Iraq since October. Lieutenant Fritz described his mission as a liaison between Iraqi police and the U.S. Army. He said the work was challenging, but rewarding.

Lieutenant Fritz was buried on January 31 with full military honors in a church cemetery 4 miles from his family home near Verdon, NE. Family and friends paid their final respects in a moving service that reminded all of the courage, commitment, and sacrifice of soldiers like Lieutenant Fritz. As his childhood friend Air Force 1LT Brett Cooper remembered, a life of service to his country followed by a retirement to the small town life that he loved was all that Lieutenant Fritz wanted. We're proud of Lieutenant Fritz's service to our country as well as the service of thousands of brave Americans who are currently serving in Iraq.

In addition to his brother Dan, Lieutenant Fritz is survived by his parents Lyle and Noala and his younger brother Ethan.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring 1LT Jacob Fritz.

Madam President, I will not speak to the specifics of the resolution or resolutions, but I am confident we will be allowed to debate this week. I say that because I know--and I have complete confidence in the two leaders--that they will, in fact, find an accommodation. They each understand how critically important this debate is for our country and for the world.

I have listened carefully this afternoon to my colleagues, and there will be more intense and engaged and enlightened debate this week. But I believe what we are about here--and we will be about this week--is something far more important than just constitutional responsibilities or resolutions. What we are about is finding a policy worthy of our young men and women and their families who go off to fight and die in a very difficult war. That is what we owe our troops. That is what we owe this country. That is what we owe the world.

It surely is not and cannot be a weakness for America, as seen in the eyes of the world, to openly debate the most critically important issue that any of us will ever debate; that is, war. That is the strength of America, not the weakness of America. The reason America has prospered for over 200 years is because the world has had confidence not in its power, trusted not its power, but trusted America's purpose.

In 1968, when I served with my brother and many others in Vietnam-- and I believe I speak for most who were there then, and I have heard from a lot of Vietnam veterans about this debate--I believe that in 1968, the troops, the ones at the bottom doing the fighting and the dying, would have welcomed the Congress of the United States into a debate about Vietnam. They would have welcomed somebody paying attention rather than just going along.

No, Madam President, that is a strength of this country. And surely we have clear constitutional responsibilities. How could anyone argue differently? We have clear constitutional responsibilities here.

I heard my colleague from Connecticut talking about nonbinding resolutions. I don't doubt his staff's research, but I remind the Senator that over the last 12 years there have been a number of nonbinding resolutions debated on this floor--on Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti, and others. I remind some of my colleagues who do not believe it is in the interest of our country or our troops to talk about nonbinding resolutions, papier mache resolutions, senseless resolutions, that they actually voted for some of those resolutions over the last 12 years. I would be very happy to provide for the record a list of how everybody in this Chamber voted over the last 12 years, if they were here, on those resolutions. It might be very interesting and enlightening. Surely it is not because one political party controls the White House and the other does not. Surely it cannot be that.

The National Intelligence Estimate summary--unclassified portions-- was made public on Friday. Those watching should have a clear understanding of what that document is and who produced that document. That document is an accumulation of the 16 intelligence agencies of this country. None that I am aware of has had the integrity of the institution they represent--any of those 16--ever impugned on questions of quality of research--maybe other facets of intelligence but not the integrity of the intent of the product. The National Intelligence Estimate says that we are involved today, and have been, in Iraq in not just a sectarian conflict--a violent, vicious sectarian conflict--but an intrasectarian conflict. Is it not time and don't our troops and the American people expect the Congress, after 4 years, when things have gotten progressively worse, not better, to engage? And is it not our responsibility to address the issue of escalating our military involvement, putting American troops in the middle of a sectarian- intrasectarian war? Is that not our responsibility? Of course, it is our responsibility.

Madam President, I will have more to say as the debate goes forward this week. As I noted, I have every confidence in our two leaders that they will work out a resolution where we will have this debate because it is clearly in the interest of our country, clearly in the interest of our troops.

With that, I yield back my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army 1LT Jacob Fritz of Nebraska. Lieutenant Fritz died from wounds sustained in an ambush in Karbala, Iraq, on January 20. He was 25 years old.

Lieutenant Fritz was raised on his family's farm near Verdon, NE. From a young age, Lieutenant Fritz knew he wanted to be a leader. After graduating from Dawson-Verdon High School in 2000, he followed through on this goal. I had the honor of nominating Lieutenant Fritz to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and he graduated from the Academy in 2005. His brother, Daniel Fritz, 22, followed in his footsteps and is currently in his third year at West Point.

Lieutenant Fritz was leading a unit of more than 30 soldiers in Iraq since October. Lieutenant Fritz described his mission as a liaison between Iraqi police and the U.S. Army. He said the work was challenging but rewarding. Thousands of brave Americans like Lieutenant Fritz are currently serving in Iraq. We are proud of Lieutenant Fritz's service to our country.

In addition to his brother, Lieutenant Fritz is survived by his parents Lyle and Noala and his younger brother Ethan.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring 1LT Jacob Fritz.

Mr. President, I rise to honor David Russell Meunier of Bellevue, NE.

David Russell Meunier was born in Peshtigo, WI, on December 13, 1940, and passed away on November 22, 2006, in Rochester, MN. Lieutenant Colonel Meunier served his country as an officer in the Strategic Air Command of the U.S. Air Force. He was a highly decorated officer and veteran of the Vietnam war. At Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, Lieutenant Colonel Meunier served as a battle staff intelligence chief. He retired from the Air Force on January 23, 1989.

Lieutenant Colonel Meunier leaves behind his wife Constance Bennet Muenier; sisters Patricia Jeske, Diane Hazlewood, and her husband Thomas; brothers, Gary and his wife Sally, and Paul and his wife Patricia. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of them at this difficult time. America is proud of Lieutenant Colonel Meunier and mourns his loss.

For his service, bravery, and commitment to our country, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring LTC David Russell Meunier.

Mr. President, we have before us one of the most important issues that has ever faced our country, certainly in modern times. The future of Iraq will affect the United States, the Middle East, and the world for decades to come.

No one in Congress and no one in the United States wants to see America humiliated, defeated, or in any way lose its purpose. The issue of Iraq involves all of us. The Congress of the United States must have a role to play.

Our responsibility is to join together in a bipartisan effort to work to develop a consensus to deal with the great challenges of our time. I know of no challenge that is greater today, before this country, than Iraq. When a Nation commits its men and women to war, it is the greatest challenge that any of us will ever deal with in our time in the Congress.

We owe it to the American people to help find a bipartisan consensus of purpose, to help develop a policy worthy of our men and women in uniform. The American people not only deserve but they expect a consensus. This resolution is not about trying to assign blame on the Administration. It is not about replaying past mistakes. This resolution is about moving forward. It is difficult but it is our responsibility.

Some of us believe that the course that the President announced Wednesday was not the appropriate course. I do not believe that the United States should be sending more American troops into the middle of the tribal, sectarian civil war that is occurring in Iraq.

Senators Biden, Levin, and I have focused personally on writing this resolution because we felt it must reflect a responsible, forward- looking, and constructive approach. We must remain focused on a strategy which seeks to advance America's national interests and allow America to leave Iraq honorably.

The American people look to its government for responsible policy. A policy that can be sustained. A policy that reflects a clear consensus of purpose regarding our objectives, our strategy and our policies. This is what our resolution seeks to achieve.

Mr. President, President Gerald Ford had a distinguished career of public service marked by his exceptional personal qualities, and his passing is a sad moment for all Americans.

President Ford was born in Omaha, NE in 1913 and grew up in Grand Rapids, MI. As a student at the University of Michigan, Ford was an allstar football player and became an assistant football coach at Yale University while he earned his law degree. During his service in World War II, he attained the rank of lieutenant commander in the Navy.

President Ford was first elected to Congress in 1948 and served for 25 years, eight as the minority leader. He was selected to serve as Vice President and became President because he was a man who could restore integrity to the Presidency, hope in America, and bridge partisan divides in Congress.

I first met Gerald Ford when he was the House minority leader and I was chief of staff for Congressman John Y. McCollister from Omaha. I have never met a person in politics who was a more decent and more complete individual than President Ford. He earned the trust and confidence of the American people through his character, competency and common decency.

I had the honor of attending his Capitol memorial service in the Rotunda last week with my daughter, Allyn, and son, Ziller. I am grateful and proud that they had the opportunity to hear President Ford remembered and eulogized with eloquence, grace, and honesty. America is a better place because of President Gerald Ford. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SSG Jeremy Mulhair of Nebraska. Sergeant Mulhair died when an explosion hit his vehicle near Taji, Iraq.

Sergeant Mulhair grew up in the rural areas northwest of Omaha. He attended Omaha Central High School. Sergeant Mulhair enlisted with the Army National Guard in 1995. He joined the Guard for both his deep sense of patriotism and a strong respect for his father Jerry, who served in Vietnam.

Sergeant Mulhair turned his National Guard duty into a job in the regular Army. He had been in Iraq since October, serving with the Apache Troop, 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment. This was his second tour of duty in Iraq. Sergeant Mulhair had served in South Korea as well.

Sergeant Mulhair was a devoted family man. He and his wife Suzie had three children: 9-year-old Celina, 8-year-old Jeremy, Jr., and 9-month- old Maybel. The family hoped to have another child when he returned from Iraq. Thousands of brave Americans like Sergeant Mulhair are currently serving in Iraq.

In addition to his wife and children, Sergeant Mulhair is survived by his parents Jerry and Mildred of Kimballton, IA, brother Robert Mulhair of Mead, NE, and sisters Dixie Heisner and Tammy Lines of Omaha.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SSG Robert Mulhair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.