Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have listened carefully to our colleague from Ohio, spending his few minutes in the Senate talking about brave men and women who serve our country. It is the mark of our colleague from Ohio, the kind of person he is--not just the kind of Senator he is--that he would come to the floor of the Senate in his last few days as a Member of this institution and focus on others, focus on those who have given the ultimate for their families, for our country and for our future. It shows us, once again, that Senator DeWine is the consummate Senator.

I am here this afternoon to recognize and thank and pay tribute to our colleagues who will be leaving the Senate. They are a varied group. Again, I can think of no finer example of this group of public servants than one of Senator DeWine's last speeches in the Senate to recognize others.

I thank you, Senator DeWine, for your service.

As we recognize, it is a distinct privilege and high honor to serve our country. It is a distinct privilege and high

honor to serve our country in any capacity, and certainly none higher than in uniform. But it is especially important we recognize those who have given years of their lives, sacrificing their families, their own time, to help make a better world for all of us. I know of no capacity in which we serve our country that has given those who have had this rare opportunity to serve in the Senate anything more noble than trying to shape a better world from this Senate.

These individuals who will leave the Senate, some on their own terms, some on the terms of the election, but, nonetheless, in their own specific way have contributed a great deal to this country.

I take a few minutes to recognize each. I start with our colleague, your dear friend, former lieutenant governor, the senior Senator from Ohio. I need not tell the distinguished Presiding Officer what Senator DeWine has meant to his State and to this country. I had the privilege of serving on the Intelligence Committee with Senator DeWine for 4 years. I have teamed up with Senator DeWine over the years on many legislative matters. I don't know of an individual who cares more, contributes more, to what they believe, than Senator DeWine. His years of service in the House, the Senate, and as lieutenant governor are to be recognized. We should thank him and tell him that we will miss him and we will especially miss a friend.

Senator Paul Sarbanes, the longest serving Senator in Maryland, serving five terms in the Senate, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970. I first got acquainted with Senator Sarbanes not as a Senator but as a young staff member, chief of staff to a congressman from Nebraska, John McCollister, who also had been elected to the House in 1970.

I have had the privilege of serving on two committees for the last 10 years with Senator Sarbanes--on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Committee on Banking. His courtesies to me, his sharp, defined intellect, his ability to dissect problems and focus on a resolution, will be greatly missed in this institution. We wish the Sarbaneses continued success and a little rest.

Senator Jim Jeffords, from Vermont. Not many former chief justices of their State have served in this Senate. He is one. Senator Jeffords, in his long, distinguished service to our country, served as Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court, served in the House of Representatives, and then served here in the Senate. He served our country in the U.S. Navy. Jim Jeffords' life has been about service.

I had an opportunity to get acquainted particularly with Senator Jeffords and work closely with him on the Individuals with Disability Education Act, IDEA. There has been no one in this Senate over the last 25 years more committed to education for our young people than Jim Jeffords. We will miss Jim Jeffords.

Senator Conrad Burns. The best thing we can say about Senator Burns is he married a girl from Nebraska. His wife Phyllis is from North Platte. Senator Burns represents some of the best the West has to offer. He will be the longest serving Republican Senator in Montana history. His background is varied: distinguished entrepreneur, broadcaster, and that which he is most proud of, a U.S. marine.

I have had the honor of working with Senator Burns on a number of bills and occasions, many related to agriculture and the cattle industry. For Senator Burns' service to our country, we thank him. We will miss him.

Senator Rick Santorum one of the leaders of the majority in the Senate the last few years, from Pennsylvania, came to the Senate in 1994 and helped shape a different agenda. He believed fervently in the power of the institution to change the world and felt deeply about issues.

I served on the Committee on Banking with Senator Santorum for many years and came to respect the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. I have a high regard for his ability to work through the big issues.

For service to our country, both the House and the Senate, thank you, Senator Santorum. We will miss you.

Senator Linc Chafee. Senator Chafee comes from a long line of public servants from the State of Rhode Island. The name ``Chafee'' is a famous name in this institution. His father John Chafee was one of the great Senators in this Senate in the 20th century. Linc picked up where his father left off.

I had the opportunity to serve with Senator Chafee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We sat next to each other for many years. He had a keen ability to cut through the fog, the nonsense, the superficial, the obsequious, and get to the real issues. We will miss that ability. We will miss that laser. I am sorry to see Senator Chafee leave. He will continue to serve his country in many areas as he has done before his service in the Senate.

Senator George Allen. We will miss footballs. Many of my colleagues received footballs. He was a quarterback for the Cavaliers at the University of Virginia and he could throw almost as well as even a Nebraska quarterback.

Senator Allen, for a very young man, has a very distinguished record of public service, serving as the Governor of the great State of Virginia, serving in the House of Representatives, serving in the U.S. Senate. I served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Senator Allen for many years, and I will miss his ability to say it clearly and plainly. And his leadership position within the Republican majority, which he served so ably, will be missed.

Senator Mark Dayton from Minnesota, a neighbor. I served on two committees with Senator Dayton, the Rules Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. He is a unique individual who served in many ways, beginning with his service to Senator and then Vice President Walter Mondale. Senator Dayton has a rich history and understanding of this institution and his State. We will miss Senator Dayton's character, his ability to also cross party aisles and help resolve the issues of our day.

Senator Jim Talent from Missouri has had 14 years of service in the House and Senate. I worked very closely with Senator Talent on his bill, the Combat Methamphetamine Act. I believe it is one of the most significant, relevant, important bills to pass the 109th Congress. He, too, will be missed. No one worked harder than Jim Talent for the interests of his State. He understands agriculture, he understands energy like very few in his State. He began his service to his country and to the State of Missouri at the age of 28, when he was elected to the House of Representatives. We will continue to hear more from Jim Talent.

I conclude my recognition of our colleagues who will be leaving us at the end of this Congress by recognizing our leader, Senator Bill Frist, from Tennessee.

Senator Frist has been referred to, as we all are, in many ways and in many terms. ``Renaissance man'' has been one of those terms that have described Bill Frist. This is a unique individual. This is a man whose life has much been about serving others.

For his leadership in the Senate during a very difficult time, this body owes him a great deal of thanks and gratitude. He will go on to continue to do significant things with his ability, his talent, his life, and we wish him well. We will miss him. We will miss his ability to, in an always steady way, help reach a consensus.

Mr. President, in conclusion, it is not easy to put one's self on the firing line and offer one's self as a candidate for any office. It takes a certain amount of courage and, I suspect, a little dose of insanity. But nonetheless individuals who believe deeply enough to commit themselves to a cause greater than their own self-interests need to be recognized. Having nothing to do with me or you or any one individual, but it is the essence of our country, it is the very fabric of our democracy that makes it all work and probably gives rise to, more than any one reason, why we have been such a successful nation for over 200 years--because people from all walks of life, in every community, in every State, offer themselves for office. Whether it is a mayor, a Governor, city councilman, county official, a sheriff, these individuals deserve recognition.

We all make mistakes. That is who we are. But in the end, it is not unlike what Teddy Roosevelt once referred to in his magnificent quote about the man in the arena. And it is the man and the

woman in the arena who change our lives. It makes a better world that shapes history, that defines our destiny. And for these individuals who will no longer have that opportunity to serve our country in the Senate, we wish them well, we thank them, and we tell them we are proud of them and their families and wish them Godspeed.

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

Mr. President I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Marine LCpl Michael Scholl of Nebraska. Lance Corporal Scholl died from wounds suffered in combat operations in Iraq's Al Anbar Province.

Lance Corporal Scholl was from Lincoln, NE. A 2002 graduate of Lincoln High School, he was originally denied enlistment with the Marines. But with persistence, Lance Corporal Scholl received a medical waiver and became a marine in 2003.

While stationed in Hawaii, Lance Corporal Scholl met his future wife Melissa. The couple were married a day before he was deployed to Afghanistan. He served in Afghanistan from summer 2005 to January 2006. Within a month of his return, he and Melissa were expecting a baby. On October 11, 2006, only a few weeks after Lance Corporal Scholl was deployed to Iraq, Melissa gave birth to Addison Rose Scholl. Although he never met his daughter, Lance Corporal Scholl was a proud father. He received pictures of her while he was in Iraq and also recorded stories for her to hear as she grew. Thousands of brave men and women like Lance Corporal Scholl are serving in Iraq.

In addition to his wife and daughter, Lance Corporal Scholl is survived by his father Steven Scholl of Friend, NE, and his mother Debora Chandler of Lincoln, NE.

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army National Guard SFC Scott Nisely of Nebraska. Sergeant Nisely died during a firefight with insurgents near Asad, Iraq, on September 30. He was 48 years old.

Sergeant Nisely was born in Syracuse, NE. After high school, he attended Doane College in Crete, NE, where he competed in track and cross country. He would later settle in Marshalltown, IA, with his wife Geri. In addition to his service in the Armed Forces, Sergeant Nisely also worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Iowa for 12 years.

While at Doane, Sergeant Nisely enlisted with the Marine Corps Reserve and served 22 years with the Marines on active duty and as a reservist. He was a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. In July, 2002, Sergeant Nisely accepted a demotion in rank to fill a vacancy in the Iowa Army National Guard and served in that capacity until his death.

Sergeant Nisely will be remembered for his strong faith and his desire to serve his country. In honor of Sergeant Nisely, Doane College will rename an annual track and field event the Scott Nisely Memorial Track Classic.

In addition to his wife, Sergeant Nisely is survived by his son Justin and his daughter Sarah.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SFC Scott Nisely.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Nebraska Army National Guard Sergeant Germaine Debro of Omaha, NE. Sergeant Debro died when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle near Balad, Iraq on September 4. He was 33 years old.

The son of a retired U.S. Air Force technical sergeant, Sergeant Debro and his family moved frequently around the country. Sergeant Debro attended Omaha Benson High School for 1 year and then moved to Arkansas where he graduated from high school in 1991.

In October 1994, Sergeant Debro enlisted in the U.S. Army. Following his service in the Army, Sergeant Debro enlisted in the Nebraska Army National Guard in October 1997. He was assigned to Detachment 1, Troop B, 1-167th Cavalry Squadron based in Wahoo, NE. Sergeant Debro remained in Wahoo until being reassigned to the Fremont, Nebraska-based Troop B, 1-167th Cavalry Squadron in January 2001. While serving with the 1- l67th Cavalry Squadron, Sergeant Debro was mobilized for several overseas deployment including service in Kuwait in 2001 and in Bosnia- Herzegovina from 2002-2003. Sergeant Debro will be remembered as a loyal soldier who had a strong sense of duty, honor and love of country. Thousands of brave Americans like Sergeant Debro are currently serving in Iraq.

Sergeant Debro is survived by his parents, Alvin and Priscilla Debro; and brothers, Alvin Jr., who served in the U.S. Army, and Maurice, all of Omaha. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time. America is proud of Sergeant Debro's heroic service and mourns his loss.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SGT Germaine L. Debro.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Nebraska Army National Guard SSG Jeffrey J. Hansen of Cairo, NE Staff Sergeant Hansen died of injuries sustained in a vehicle accident near Balad, Iraq on Sunday, August 27. He was 31 years old.

Staff Sergeant Hansen was a 1993 graduate of Bertrand Community High School and graduated from the University of Nebraska at Kearney in 1997. Staff Sergeant Hansen lived in Cairo, NE, with his wife, Jennifer, and worked as a police officer at the Department of Veterans Affairs' medical facility in Grand Island, NE.

In January 2000, Staff Sergeant Hansen enlisted with the Nebraska Army National Guard. He mobilized for a tour of duty in Iraq on October 11, 2005 with the 1st Squadron, 167th Cavalry Regiment. Staff Sergeant Hansen served in a unit comprised of approximately 360 Nebraska Guard soldiers that were providing security for Camp Anaconda near Balad, Iraq. Staff Sergeant Hansen will be remembered as a loyal soldier who had a strong sense of duty, honor and love of country. Thousands of brave Americans like Staff Sergeant Hansen are currently serving in Iraq.

In addition to his wife, Staff Sergeant Hansen is survived by his father, Robert, of Bertrand, Nebraska. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time. America is proud of Staff Sergeant Hansen's heroic service and mourns his loss.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Staff Sergeant Jeffrey J. Hansen.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, the Middle East today is a region in crisis. After 3 weeks of escalating and continuing violence, the potential for wider regional conflict becomes more real each day. The hatred in the Middle East is being driven deeper and deeper into the fabric of the region, which will make any lasting and sustained peace effort very difficult to achieve.

How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon, is going to enhance America's image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East?

The sickening slaughter on both sides must end, and it must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop. The Middle East today is more combustible and complex than it has ever been. Uncertain popular support for regime legitimacy continues to weaken governments in the Middle East. Economic stagnation, persistent unemployment, deepening despair, and wider unrest enhance the ability of terrorists to recruit and succeed.

An Iran with nuclear weapons raises the specter of broader proliferation and a fundamental strategic realignment in the region, creating more regional instability. America's approach to the Middle East must be consistent and sustained, and it must understand the history, the interests, and the perspectives of our regional friends and allies.

The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice.

Achieving a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is as much in Israel's interest as any other country in the world. Unending war will continually drain Israel of its human capital, resources, and energy as it continually fights for its survival.

The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an ``us against the world'' global optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America's global leadership, our trust and influence, further isolating Israel, and it would prove disastrous for both countries, as well as the region. It is in Israel's interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.

The world has rightly condemned the despicable actions of Hezbollah and

Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel has the undeniable right to defend itself against aggression. This is the right of all nations.

Hezbollah is a threat to Israel, to Lebanon, and to all who strive for lasting peace in the Middle East. However, military action alone will not destroy Hezbollah or Hamas. Extended military action is tearing Lebanon apart, killing innocent civilians, devastating its economy and infrastructure, and creating a humanitarian disaster, further weakening Lebanon's fragile democratic government, strengthening popular Muslim and Arab support for Hezbollah, and deepening hatred of Israel's position across the Middle East. The pursuit of tactical military victories at the expense of the core strategic objective of Arab-Israeli peace is a hollow victory. The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield.

To achieve a strategic shift in the conditions for Middle East peace, the United States must use the global condemnation of terrorist acts as the basis for substantive change. For a lasting and popularly supported resolution, only a strong Lebanese Government and a strong Lebanese Army, backed by the international community, can rid Lebanon of these corrosive militias and terrorist organizations.

President Bush and Secretary Rice must become and remain deeply engaged in the Middle East. Only U.S. leadership can build a consensus of purpose among our regional and international partners. To lead and sustain U.S. engagement, the President should appoint a statesman of global stature, experience, and ability to serve as his personal envoy to the region. This individual would report directly to the President and be empowered with the authority to speak and act for the President. Former Secretaries of State Baker and Powell fit this profile.

The President must publicly decry the slaughter today and work toward an immediate cease-fire in the Middle East. The U.N. Security Council must urgently adopt a new binding resolution that provides a comprehensive political, security, and economic framework for Lebanon, Israel, and the region--a framework that begins with the immediate cessation of violence.

I strongly support the deployment of a robust international force along the Israel-Lebanon border to facilitate a steady deployment of a strengthened Lebanese Army into southern Lebanon to eventually assume responsibility for security and the rule of law.

America must listen carefully to its friends, its partners in the region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and others--countries that understand the Middle East far better than we do--must commit to help resolve today's crisis, and they must be active partners in helping realize the already-agreed-upon two-state solution.

The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the underlying Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to address this root cause will allow Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorists to continue to sustain popular Muslim and Arab support--a dynamic that continues to undermine America's standing in the region and the Governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others, whose support is critical for any Middle East resolution.

The United States should engage our Middle East and international partners to revive the Beirut Declaration, or some version of that declaration, proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and adopted unanimously by the Arab League in March of 2002. In this historic initiative, the Arab world recognized Israel's right to exist and sought to establish a path toward a two-state solution and broader Arab-Israeli peace. Even though Israel could not accept it as it was written, it represented a very significant starting point--starting point--document initiated by Arab countries. Today, we need a new Beirut Declaration-type initiative. We squandered the last one.

The concept and intent of the 2002 Beirut Declaration is as relevant today as it was in 2002. An Arab-initiated, Beirut-type declaration would reinvest regional Arab States with a stake in achieving progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. This type of initiative would offer a positive alternative--a positive alternative--vision for Arab populations to the ideology and goals of Islamic extremists. The United States must explore this approach as part of its diplomatic engagement in the Middle East.

Lasting peace in the Middle East, and stability and security for Israel, will come only from a regionally oriented political settlement. Former American Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross once observed that in the Middle East a process is necessary because a process absorbs events. Without a process, events become crises. He was right. Look at where we are today in the Middle East with no process. Crisis diplomacy is no substitute for sustained, day-to-day engagement.

America's approach to Syria and Iran is inextricably tied to Middle East peace. Whether or not they were directly involved in the latest Hezbollah and Hamas aggression in Israel, both countries exert influence in the region in ways that undermine stability and security. As we work with our friends and allies to deny Syria and Iran any opportunity to further corrode the situation in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, both Damascus and Tehran must hear from America directly.

As John McLaughlin, the former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recently wrote in the Washington Post--and I quote Mr. McLaughlin--

Even superpowers have to talk to bad guys. The absence of a

diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of

the one with Syria--two countries that bear enormous

responsibility for the current crisis [in the Middle East]--

leave the United States with fewer options and levers than

might otherwise have been the case.

Distasteful as it might have been to have or to maintain

open and normal relations with such states, the absence of

such relations ensures that we will have more blind spots

than we can afford and that we will have to deal through

surrogates on issues of vital importance to the United

States.''

Ultimately, the United States will need to engage Iran and

Syria with an agenda open to all areas of agreement and

disagreement. For this dialog to have any meaning or possible

lasting relevance, it should encompass the full agenda of

issues.

There is very little good news coming out of Iraq today.

Increasingly vicious sectarian violence continues to propel

Iraq toward civil war.

The U.S. announcement last week to send additional U.S.

troops and military police back into Baghdad reverses last

month's decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead in

Baghdad and represents a dramatic setback for the U.S. and

the Iraqi Government.

The Iraqi Government has limited ability to enforce the

rule of law in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Green zone

politics appear to have little bearing or relation to the

realities of the rest of Iraq. The Iraqis will continue to

face difficult choices over the future of their country.

The day-to-day responsibilities of governing and security

will soon have to be assumed by Iraqis. This is not about

setting a timeline. This is about understanding the

implications of the forces of reality. This reality is being

determined by Iraqis, not Americans.

America is bogged down in Iraq and this is limiting our

diplomatic and military options. The longer America remains

in Iraq in its current capacity, the deeper the damage to our

force structure--particularly the U.S. Army.

And it will continue to place more limitations on an

already dangerously overextended force structure that will

further limit our options and public support.

The Middle East crisis represents a moment of great danger,

but it is also an opportunity.

Crisis focuses the minds of leaders and the attention of

nations. The Middle East need not be a region forever captive

to the fire of war and historical hatred. It can avoid this

fate if the United States pursues sustained and engaged

leadership worthy of our history, purpose, and power. America

cannot fix every problem in the world; nor should it try. But

we must get the big issues and important relationships right

and concentrate on those.

We know that without engaged and active American

leadership, the world is more dangerous. The United States

must focus all of its leadership and resources on ending this

madness in the Middle East now.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my remarks given at the Brookings Institution on July 28, 2006.

Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues Senators Lugar, Obama, Murkowski and Gregg, I rise to submit a resolution that expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should begin negotiations to establish a free trade agreement with Mongolia.

The United States and Mongolia enjoy healthy and deepening relations since the end of one-party Communist rule in Mongolia in 1990. Today, Mongolia is a strong and consistent partner of America, and has demonstrated its commitment to peace, democracy and international stability, notably by its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. America's relationship with Mongolia carries geostrategic importance.

Mongolia has made significant progress to strengthen its democratic governing institutions, to protect individuals rights and achieve free- market reforms. Its governments have adopted reforms that have enacted democratic electoral processes and the rule of law, privatized state enterprises, lifted price controls and improved fiscal discipline. Mongolia has achieved remarkable progress and continues to express its commitment to continued democratic and economic transition.

Mongolia has worked over the past years to become re-integrated in the international economic framework. In 1991, Mongolia joined the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. In 1997, Mongolia joined the World Trade Organization. In 1999, the United States provided permanent normal trade relations to Mongolia. And, in 2004, the United States and Mongolia signed a bilateral Trade and Investment Framework Agreement. In 2005, bilateral trade was valued at more than $165 million.

This resolution recognizes the significance of the U.S.-Mongolia relationship and emphasizes that a deeper and more lasting bilateral economic and trading relationship is in the interest of both countries. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Navy Airman Jason Doyle of Nebraska. Airman Doyle died after falling overboard from the USS Kitty Hawk off the eastern coast of Japan on July 8. He was 19 years old.

Airman Doyle grew up near Sunset, UT. In 2000, he moved to Bellevue, NE and was a 2005 graduate of Papillion-La Vista South High School. He joined the Navy immediately following graduation.

Airman Doyle had a lifelong interest in flying and in Japanese culture. He turned those interests into an opportunity with the Navy. He was deployed with the Electronic Attack Squadron, VAQ, 136 aboard the USS Kitty Hawk in October 2005. His first leave was at a Japanese port, where he was able to experience a culture he had been fascinated with his entire life. Thousands of brave Americans like Airman Doyle are serving the United States worldwide.

Airman Doyle is survived by his father, Dale Doyle; his mother, Martha Bower; his stepmother, Susie Doyle; his brother Brandon; and sisters Shauna, Whitney, and Ashley.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Airman Jason Doyle.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SFC Terry Wallace of Nebraska. Sergeant Wallace died when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle in Taji, Iraq on June 27. He was 33 years old.

Sergeant Wallace was born in Winnsboro, LA. He graduated from Winnsboro High School, where he ran track and played drums in the school band. He enlisted in the Army in 1990. In recent years, Sergeant Wallace lived in Bellevue, NE, with his wife Shunda and daughter Raven.

Sergeant Wallace had several assignments overseas, including other locations in the Middle East. In December 2005, he was deployed to Iraq with the 4th Battalion, 42nd Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, based out of Fort Hood, TX. Sergeant Wallace will be remembered as a smart, hardworking man who was honored to serve and defend his country. Thousands of brave Americans like Sergeant Wallace are currently serving in Iraq.

In addition to his wife and daughter, Sergeant Wallace is survived by his

parents J.R. and Mary Wallace; his twin brother Jerry, as well as several other brothers and sisters. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time. America is proud of Sergeant Wallace's heroic service and mourns his loss.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SFC Terry Wallace.

Corporal Jeremy S. Jones

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army SPC Jeremy Jones from Nebraska. Specialist Jones died of wounds received from a roadside bomb in Iskandariyah, Iraq on June 27. He was 25 years old.

Specialist Jones was a resident of Omaha and graduated from Millard West High School in 1999, where he competed in football and wrestling. He enlisted in the Army in 2003, shortly after being married to his wife Jenny. He was deployed to Iraq in November, serving with the Army's 1st Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment of Fort Hood, TX. Specialist Jones hoped to make a career in the Army. In April, he reenlisted for another 6 years.

In February, Specialist Jones flew from Iraq to Omaha to see his newborn daughter Mackenzie for the first time. He was a proud father, and he was proud of his service to his country. Thousands of brave Americans like Specialist Jones are currently serving in Iraq.

In addition to his daughter and wife, Specialist Jones is survived by his son Anthony; his mother Diane; his father Scott; and his sister Abbi. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time. America is proud of Specialist Jones' heroic service and mourns his loss.

I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SPC Jeremy Jones.

Mr. President, I thank the sponsors of this amendment, Senators Levin and Reed, for offering a thoughtful amendment. They are making a responsible contribution to this debate. All Americans want a successful outcome in Iraq. Congress has an obligation to help craft a responsible policy to help achieve a successful outcome in Iraq. Congress fails in its duty when we do not probe, when we do not ask tough questions, and we fail when we don't debate the great issues of our day.

There is no issue more important than war. The war in Iraq is the defining issue on which this Congress and the administration will be judged. The American people want to see serious debate about serious issues from serious leaders. They deserve more than a political debate. This debate should transcend cynical attempts to turn public frustration with the war in Iraq into an electoral advantage. It should be taken more seriously than to simply use the focus group-tested buzzwords like ``cut and run'' and political slogans and debase the seriousness of war. War is not a partisan issue. It should not be held hostage to political agendas. War should not be dragged into the political muck. America deserves better. Our men and women fighting and dying deserve better.

As mentioned earlier by Senator Feinstein and others, there was a very important piece in yesterday's Washington Post, written by Iraq's National Security Adviser. It was titled ``The Way Out of Iraq; A Roadmap.'' The National Security Adviser's op-ed mentions three very important things we need to clearly understand. The first thing this op-ed provides is measurable goals for the progress of the Iraqi Government with regard to U.S. troop presence. The Iraqi National Security Adviser says this:

Iraq's ambition is to have full control of their country by

the end of 2008. In practice, this will mean a significant

foreign troop reduction. We envision the U.S. troop presence

by year's ends to be under 100,000, with most of the

remaining troops to return home by the year 2007.

The second point the op-ed makes clear is the unavoidable reality that an endless U.S. troop presence is not in the interest of the new Iraqi Government. The Iraqi National Security Adviser says this:

The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets

will help Iraqis who now see foreign troops as occupiers

rather than the liberators they were meant to be. The removal

of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with

some of our neighbors that have, to date, been at the very

least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call

the ``coalition occupation.'' The removal of foreign troops

will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of the people.

He makes clear that it will be the Iraqis who determine the success of the Iraqi Government. He says:

The government in Iraq is trying to gain its independence

from the United States and the coalition, in terms of taking

greater responsibility for its actions, particularly in terms

of security. There are still some influential foreign figures

trying to spoon feed our government and take a very proactive

role in many key decisions. Though this may provide benefits

in the short-term, in the long term it will only serve to

make the Iraqi government weaker and will lead to a culture

of dependency.

I believe the Iraqi national security adviser has it exactly right. After all, he is the Iraqi national security adviser. Americans listening to this debate on Iraq are too often being given

false choices between, one, supporting the Iraqis with no end of troop deployments in sight or staying the course, or, two, laying down arbitrary deadlines for troop withdrawals. The reality is more complicated than this.

We should not limit the Commander in Chief's options in Iraq. That is why I will vote against the Levin amendment. However, anyone who believes we will be in Iraq indefinitely ignores the forces of reality, as the Iraqi Security Adviser's op-ed makes very clear. It is not in Iraq's interest for the United States to remain in Iraq. Our influence is limited and becoming more limited every day.

I note another story in yesterday's Washington Post that detailed the reaction of Vietnam veterans to the war in Iraq. I know a little something about this. My generation worries about Iraq becoming not the failure of our sons and daughters fighting in Iraq, but our failure as policymakers--policymakers--because I believe our policymakers failed us in Vietnam.

Our troops today are doing what we did a generation ago in Vietnam. They are fighting bravely. They are doing their very best. They believe in their country, they have faith in their leaders, and we cannot let them down.

I would say that there may be two Members of Congress today-- Congressman Murtha in the House and myself--who served in Vietnam and were both here working in the Congress in the spring of 1975. Many might recall that time because that was the time the House of Representatives essentially voted to cut off funding for American presence in Vietnam. That was a disastrous decision for disastrous reasons, but it was the result of having a Congress absent and not involved in the policy formation, not involved in asking the tough questions, not involved in doing its job.

This debate today is critical. It is important for our country, agree or disagree with it. Amendments such as the Levin amendment are relevant, and they are an important contribution. When we debate these issues, Congress is doing its job. We do not want our legacy as a Congress to be no congressional oversight. We do not want it to be said we were irrelevant when it becomes too late. We do not want to repeat the history of Vietnam. We must not allow what happened in the Congress in April of 1975 to happen with Iraq, and it happened because we didn't debate the issues. It happened because the Congress was absent; it forfeited its responsibilities. It debased the very responsibility of elected officials. And that is why to debate these issues in a legitimate, honest, open manner is so important to our country, and to keep it out of politics, the ``gotcha'' kind of amendments, the ``gotcha'' kind of phraseology of which America is sick.

This is a serious issue. We have lost over 2,500 men and women in Iraq. We have been in Iraq longer than the Korean war. We have over 18,000 wounded. We are spending around $10 billion a month. The Congress must be present.

I ask for 15 seconds.

I thank the chairman.

I conclude, Mr. President, with this: What would be the real disaster for America, the real disaster for Iraq, the disaster for the Middle East, the disaster for the world is if this Congress is not present and accounted for and is not part of a policy formation for not just Iraq but the Middle East and the future of our country and the world. That would be the disaster. That is why it is so important today that we debate this issue; it is so important that we have amendments, such as the Levin-Reed amendment, that are offered in an important way that make a contribution to the understanding of America's presence and commitment and our responsibilities as a free nation and the beacon of freedom in the world.

Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I yield the floor.

I ask to speak for up to 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I appreciate the time from the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

I rise to strongly support the Biden amendment. It is the responsible and appropriate position for this body to take on a very serious issue. It is important that we recognize, just as the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has noted, that we support our President. I believe President Bush's actions and directions, as they are now playing out, are, in fact, the appropriate, responsible, and relevant actions to take.

I also rise to strongly oppose the Santorum amendment. Again, noting what the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania said, that we should send a strong message to the world that we are supporting our President, I am not certain how that is accomplished by supporting the Santorum amendment. In fact, as has been noted on the floor this morning, the President's senior foreign policy agent, the Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, is opposed. The Secretary of State of the United States Government is opposed to the Santorum amendment. I am not certain how that connects with what my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania has noted.

What we are dealing with in the Santorum amendment is a very irresponsible, dangerous direction to take.

Let me remind colleagues that we already are at war in two nations. We have 130,000 American troops engaged now in a war in Iraq. The Middle East is in turmoil. We have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. NATO is in Afghanistan. Many of our allies are with us in Iraq.

We better be careful here. We better be careful in how we are dealing with this issue. It is a serious issue. It is dangerous. But it is complicated. Iran is not a monolithic government that we can ascribe motives to, agreements to. Our best course of action is exactly where the President is going. And that is, engaging Iran, engaging with our allies, strengthening our alliances. If we are not careful, we will find America isolated in the world at a very dangerous time. That is what the Santorum amendment is about.

This is not helping our President. Our President is opposed to it. He is taking a different direction.

Let's be careful. This is not just some amendment. This is the force of the U.S. Senate that could be put into a law in fact limiting the President's options. Is that what we want to do and is that how we describe supporting the President, limiting the President's options? I don't think so. This is dangerous business, very dangerous business. Before our colleagues vote, they better understand what is going to be required.

Again, I thank my distinguished colleague from Virginia for the time. I hope our colleagues, before they vote, will understand the consequences of a dangerous amendment like this. I shall oppose it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to wish the U.S. Army happy birthday. It was 231 years ago today, June 14, 1775, that the Continental Army of the United States was formed.

Over the past 231 years, millions of men and women have served in the oldest branch of our Armed Forces. Their honor, courage, sacrifice and service are the foundation of America's greatness.

The Army principles of ``Duty, Honor, Country'' is America. Every generation of Americans who have served in the U.S. Army from the Continental Army to our fighting men and women serving today in Iraq and Afghanistan have been shaped by these principles. The United States Army has shaped lives just as it has shaped our history.

The U.S. Army has protected our democracy and helped make the world more secure, peaceful, and prosperous.

On this 231st birthday of the U.S. Army, we also recognize and thank the individuals who have sacrificed and served our country. They inspire us and will continue to serve as role models for future generations.

``Happy Birthday'' to the U.S. Army. And, in the Army's great rich tradition and as a proud Army veteran, I proclaim my annual Senate floor ``HOOAH!''