Floor Statements

I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding.

Mr. President, I do have an amendment I would like to call up and ask for its immediate consideration. Is there an amendment pending at this time?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 308 be called up.

Mr. President, this amendment will expand and improve the Proliferation Security Initiative in the national security interest of the United States. The Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI, is now 4 years old. It is a program whereby the United States is working with 80 allied countries to jointly interdict shipments of weapons of mass destruction-related materials in a timely manner when critical intelligence is received about imminent transfers of weapons of mass destruction.

The PSI is based on voluntary cooperation by participating countries and relies on the ability to react quickly to time-sensitive intelligence on the

movement of weapons of mass destruction material. According to the Department of State, the Proliferation Security Initiative was critical in uncovering Libya's weapons of mass destruction program in the AQ Khan proliferation network in 2003. PSI halted more than two dozen weapons of mass destruction-related transfers from 2005 to 2006. PSI has improved the capabilities of our partnering countries to take coordinated action to interdict proliferation-related shipments.

The House-passed version of this legislation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill, or H.R. 1, significantly changes the Proliferation Security Initiative in two key ways: First, the House would surrender the Proliferation Security Initiative to the U.N., a multilateral bureaucracy. Second, the House wants to give countries such as Russia and China veto power on U.S. national security by subjecting the Proliferation Security Initiative to U.N. Security Council approval. This is the wrong direction to take for a key U.S. tool in fighting the war on terror.

For the Proliferation Security Initiative to be successful and intervene in time to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction, there must be a rapid-response capability and flexibility to respond to intelligence information. H.R. 1, the House-passed version of this legislation, would place the Proliferation Security Initiative in a regulatory and inflexible straitjacket overseen by an international bureaucracy.

When we receive intelligence that al-Qaida is shipping material for a nuclear bomb through the waters of one of our allies, that intelligence demands immediate action, not deliberation and redtape. By removing the Proliferation Security Initiative from the safety and discretion of unique and bilateral relationships, the House-passed bill will likely reduce the willingness of other countries to cooperate, especially countries where cooperation could produce domestic political problems.

The Proliferation Security Initiative is an effective means to help our allies use their own legal authorities to implement their commitments under existing multilateral nonproliferation regimes that include the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, and the Australia Group. In addition, the State Department believes that PSI cooperation is an effective way to implement countries' commitments to U.N. Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 1718 on North Korea and Resolution 1737 on Iran. Turning the PSI into yet another multilateral regime would not only be unnecessary but would also be a hindrance to effective nonproliferation.

H.R. 1, the House-passed bill, by creating a multilateral regime for PSI, would limit our ability to share intelligence on proliferation- related shipments because it would subject sensitive U.S. intelligence sources and methods to broad international disclosure. This disclosure of sensitive and, at times, classified intelligence would expose our sources, covert agents, and methods to our enemies, including the very weapons of mass destruction traffickers we seek to shut down.

H.R. 1 would require annual GAO reports on Proliferation Security Initiative activities even though there are already several other reports currently required on nonproliferation matters that are sent to Congress, including reports that discuss PSI-related activities, such as the ``Periodic Report to Congress on the National Emergency Regarding Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' Adding another hoop for PSI to jump through would be counterproductive, and annual reports on PSI may even expose PSI's methodologies to proliferators.

The House-passed bill is also flawed because it would require the President to seek authorization from the U.N. Security Council for PSI. H.R. 1 implies that international law written by the U.N. Security Council is required to authorize U.S. measures to protect itself and the world from the proliferation of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Security Council members should not be given a veto over what a bilateral national security program can and cannot do. As it is, China has refused to endorse the Proliferation Security Initiative, probably because Chinese traffickers are likely targets for PSI. We have already seen China wielding its veto power to undermine and delay U.S. national security priorities. Because of their objections, it took months of extra deliberations for the Security Council to finally confront the leading state sponsor of terror, probably the world's greatest proliferation challenge--Iran. Granting the U.N. Security Council an intrusive role in our national security activities would compromise highly sensitive intelligence.

PSI activities already are legal. All activities are undertaken in full compliance with international law. PSI already cooperates well in its existing form with the United Nations and other international organizations. In 2005, the U.N. Secretary General applauded the efforts of the Proliferation Security Initiative to fill a gap in our defenses. PSI has also won European Union and G8 endorsement. Why would our Democratic friends in the House want to change a program so highly regarded by our European friends?

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.N. has a failing grade when it comes to effectively fighting the war on terror. The U.N. has failed to establish a comprehensive definition for terrorism. The U.N. has failed to fulfill its September 2005 commitment of the Summit of World Leaders to establish a comprehensive convention against terrorism. The U.N. Counter-Terrorism Committee has failed to identify terrorist groups and states.

Finally, the U.N. has failed to prohibit state sponsors of terror from running for seats on or chairing any U.N. body, such as the Human Rights Council or the United Nations Disarmament Commission. In fact, in April of 2006, the leading weapons proliferator and state sponsor of terror, Iran, served as vice chair of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.

The U.N. has failed to prohibit giving U.N. credentials to nongovernmental organizations that condone or promote terrorism or terrorist groups.

H.R. 1, the House-passed version of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the legislation we are considering currently in the Senate, returns us to the failed policy of the previous decade where the preference was for unenforced multilateral regimes instead of effective U.S. programs. H.R. 1 would be a step backward toward policies that left the United States vulnerable to terrorist attacks on 9/11. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to maintain the integrity of the Proliferation Security Initiative and to help keep our Nation secure.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize T. Denny Sanford for his generosity recently represented by the gift of $400 million to Sioux Valley Hospitals and Health System. This gift is the second largest donation to any medical institution since 2001 and will help Sioux Valley transform itself into a world-class research institution. In recognition of the donation and in honor of Mr. Sanford, the health care system has been renamed Sanford Health.

Since his birth in St. Paul, MN, in 1935, T. Denny Sanford has reached many outstanding milestones that deserve recognition and praise. After starting work at age 8 in his father's clothing distribution company, he spent most of his teen years selling his father's clothing to retail stores. He later graduated with a degree in psychology from the University of Minnesota and was recruited for a sales and marketing management position with Armstrong Cork Company.

In the 1960s, Mr. Sanford established a manufacturers' representative company and a regional distribution company. Then in 1971, he bought Contech, a specialty chemical company, from Sears & Roebuck and took it public the following year. After selling Contech in the 1980s, he created a venture capital fund to provide financing to young entrepreneurs. Out of the 28 companies he has financed, 18 have become public corporations.

In 1986, Mr. Sanford purchased United National Bank in Sioux Falls, SD. The bank, now named First Premier Bank, has expanded throughout South Dakota and includes Premier Bankcard Inc., which is a national leader in the credit card industry.

Although Mr. Sanford is well-known for his business achievements, he is even more distinguished for his philanthropy. He has donated millions to organizations that are close to his heart and even started the Sanford Foundation for charitable giving. In 2005, he gave over $70.5 million to charitable causes in the United States and ranked 14th on the Chronicle of Philanthropy's list of America's most-generous donors. Additionally, in 2006, he was named to the Business Week Top 50 list of most-generous philanthropists in the United States.

Before his most recent donation, Mr. Sanford had contributed $20 million to Sioux Valley for expansion with South Dakota's medical school and $16 million for Sanford Children's Hospital, which plans to open in 2009. This recent gift of $400 million will be used to achieve four major goals. These goals are to build 5 pediatric clinics around the country, to expand research, to build a health care campus with over 20 separate facilities, and to specialize in a specific line of medical research that will result in a cure.

T. Denny Sanford's generous gift to Sioux Valley will encourage prosperity and growth for South Dakota by generating an estimated 9,200 new jobs, adding approximately $1.2 billion to the economy, drawing patients from around the world, and improving the wellness of our citizens. This donation will reach people from across the country and make South Dakota a leader and magnet in medical research.

T. Denny Sanford is a giving man with a passion for making a difference in the lives around him. He is even known to have a goal to ``die broke.'' Because of his profound generosity and desire to help others, T. Denny Sanford's influence will be evident for many generations to come.

On behalf of the State of South Dakota, I am honored to rise and say: Thank you, Denny. Your significant gift will have a lasting influence not only on the people of South Dakota but on people throughout the world that will be affected by your selfless generosity.

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

Mr. President, as I listened this last week to media reports about a reported plan by Senate Democrats to deauthorize the Iraq war resolution, my first reaction was that they cannot be serious; they cannot want to have Senators managing the war on terror from the floor of the Senate. We would be telling our commanders and our troops how to do their jobs.

Under the latest Democratic proposal--which, incidentally, is now the fifth resolution that they have brought forward--that was unveiled last week, there would be no combat role for our troops in Iraq. Yet we would still allegedly have some number of troops there for training, support, and logistics.

I think the question you have to ask with a policy such as that is, What if those troops are fired upon? Can they not return fire because the Senate says they are not to have a combat role?

Just when I thought this debate had reached the low point on the depth chart, the Senate Democrats have drained a little more out of the pool. For weeks now, they have been attacking Republicans for blocking a debate on Iraq when nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans welcome a debate about Iraq. The only difference is we believe it should be a full, fair, and open debate. The Democratic leaders tried to prevent that by blocking any Republican amendments. The Democrats want a rigged, one-sided debate that has nothing to do with substance and everything to do with political theater. That is wrong, and it is wrong for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it is wrong because it undermines the unique role our Founders designed for the Senate, a place where debate is welcome, a place that is deliberative, and a place where the power to amend is recognized. Under the Democrats' rigged approach, only their proposal gets heard. Republicans asked for just one alternative, one amendment, and it was rejected by the Democratic leadership. Now, I would ask, where is the fairness in that? Where is the openness in that?

Secondly, and more importantly, it is wrong because it sends entirely the wrong message to our troops and to our enemies. Our troops need to know that they are supported and that their mission is supported. Our enemies need to know we are serious about winning. The action taken by Senate Democrats on this issue has trivialized this very serious debate, and I believe we owe it to those who have sacrificed so much, and to their families, to give this new strategy a chance to succeed.

I visited a number of soldiers last week at Walter Reed Hospital. I think that is my fourth trip up there. I have also had the opportunity to visit with soldiers injured on the battlefield at the hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, at Ramstein Air Force Base. These are men who have lost limbs due to IEDs and EFPs. They are an amazing group of people, an amazing inspiration, and they want to know their sacrifice has not been in vain.

This strategy which has been proposed is a change. It originated with our commanders, and it is supported by our commanders. It calls for several things. It calls for some additional troop strength in the region, primarily in Baghdad and also some out in Anbar Province. It calls for different rules of engagement in that fight, and it calls for more Iraqi involvement in several different ways:

Militarily. It gets the Iraqis more into the fight. They take the lead, and the United States takes more of a support role.

Economically. There are requirements that the Iraqi Government invest in infrastructure in their country and that they come up with a way of dividing the oil revenues so that all the different locations in the country can benefit from this great resource they have available to them.

It puts in place political benchmarks as well. They need to hold provincial elections.

All these things--military, economic, and political benchmarks--are things the Iraqis have to meet. I believe we will know in a matter of months whether this new strategy is working. I want it to work. I want to see our troops succeed, and so do most Americans.

A nonbinding resolution signaling a lack of support was bad enough, but now the Democrats in Congress have taken what in my view is a far more dangerous turn. They have embarked on a course which is binding, which has the force of law, and which would have Congress managing a war. That is a very frightening prospect, but that is exactly what this latest Democratic proposal would do.

In fact, listen to what was said yesterday by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He was asked on ``Meet the Press'' by Tim Russert about how many troops would be left behind under their proposal, and he said a limited number. Mr. Russert said: 10,000, 20,000? The distinguished Senator, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said:

I don't want to put a specific number on it because that

really should be left to the commanders, who decide how many

would be needed to carry out those limited functions.

I am glad there is going to be some role for General Petraeus. I am glad he will be deciding some things in the theater over there.

When the question was asked later on by Mr. Russert: Aren't you tying the hands of the Commander in Chief, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, said:

Well, we hope to put a cap on the number of troops. If I

had my way, I would cap them. Of course, if I had my way, we

would never have gone there to begin with. But of course we

are trying to tie the hands of the President and his policy.

I want my colleagues to listen to the proposal that has been offered in the House of Representatives and just recently, this last week, was discussed and debated over there. Essentially, what that plan would entail is that the Congress would decide the particulars when it comes to which troops can go on combat tours and which ones can be extended beyond the year. To be sent into battle, troops would have to have a year's rest between combat tours, and soldiers in Iraq could not have their tours extended beyond a year. The Pentagon's stop-loss policy, which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their service obligations are up, would end.

These are very troubling developments and proposals, particularly when they are considered in light of what the constitutional role of the Congress is when it comes to these types of matters. Congress does not have the expertise or the constitutional authority to micromanage tactics in a war.

I want to read something for my colleagues from an op-ed in the Wall

Street Journal from a few weeks back. It was written by David Rivkin and Lee Casey, and it says this:

The Constitution vests Congress with formidable authority

to affect how the President fights wars. Congress has the

power to declare war, formally rupturing international legal

relations between the U.S. and a belligerent enemy nation,

and to prescribe rules governing military discipline and

regulating the capture of military property. If it determines

to withhold funding for an ongoing conflict, it can compel

the President to withdraw U.S. forces. What Congress cannot

do, however, is direct how a President prosecutes a

particular war, including decisions about how many of the

available forces to introduce into a theatre of conflict.

Would someone on the other side of the aisle please step forward and remind me that there is logic and common sense and that liberal interest groups have not taken over our colleagues on the Democratic side. These actions are stunningly transparent, designed to embarrass the President and to woo liberal interest groups. Let us not go down that road. Our troops and their families and the American people deserve better.

There are a number of Members of the Senate who have served their country and who are veterans. I have the highest respect for the distinguished Presiding Officer, who is among those who have seen combat and understands what it entails and the chain of command. I can't imagine any Member of the Senate who has been involved in combat who would condone having politicians here in Washington, DC, Members of the Senate, no matter how well intended, directing and managing military conflict and getting in the way of our commanders and our troops and their ability to conduct and perform their mission and to do their job.

I think it terribly unfortunate what has happened here in the Senate. I do believe it has trivialized what should be a very serious debate. I have maintained all along that this is a debate we ought to have because this is the dominant issue of our time about which people across this country have incredibly strong feelings. Irrespective of how we got there and what one thinks about that, it is important now that we evaluate seriously, that we examine, and that we analyze how best to proceed and move forward.

There is a plan. It is being implemented. I want to see it succeed. I hope and pray, for the sake of our troops in the theater, that it does succeed. What we cannot afford to have happen in this Congress is to go down this path where one side is trying to one-up the other side and frame the debate, to define the terms of the debate in a way that is politically advantageous to them. That is wrong.

That is why I am here today, to say we ought to have a debate. It ought to be a full, fair, and open debate, in keeping with the tradition and the history of the Senate and in keeping with the commitment we have made to the men and women we have put in harm's way and who wear the uniform of the United States of America. They deserve to have our support not only of them but of the mission they are undertaking. They need to know that we believe they can succeed, that we believe they can win, that we believe they can achieve victory. If we fail in that important mission, future generations are going to pay a dear price. The global war on terror is not going away. It is important that here in the Senate we dignify the great service of those great Americans by having a dignified debate that is full, that is fair, that is open, and that is not intent on micromanaging and directing the affairs of our military leadership and telling our commanders what they can and cannot do when it comes to winning this very important war.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Senator Kent Conrad is an original cosponsor to S. 331, a bill to provide grants from moneys collected from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program to be used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative fuels.

In my floor statement on January 18, 2007, I referenced Senator Conrad as a cosponsor but he was omitted from the list of cosponsors of this legislation. I ask that the Record be updated to reflect Senator Conrad's original cosponsorship.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for yielding and commend him on an incredibly eloquent and insightful explanation of the events of the day, why what we are doing in Iraq is so important. He is someone who has 10 years of experience on the Armed Services Committee. Has served as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He has a great depth of knowledge when it comes to national security matters, foreign policy, and particularly with respect to the current debate about the Middle East. So I thank him for his great comments.

I just want to point out that with respect to this debate, I had watched, as everyone else did, I think, yesterday what unfolded on the floor. I believe what happened in the last 24 hours has demonstrated what a charade this whole Iraqi resolution process has been.

This is serious business. This is the most serious business we will deal with in the Senate. Young Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. I would say, having been to Iraq on three different occasions-- most recently about 6 weeks ago--things in Baghdad are not going well. There are other parts of Iraq where we have made much better progress, even in some parts of western Iraq where we have gotten some buy-in from some of the local sheiks who have decided to participate in the democratic process and support the effort to provide security in that region of Iraq. But the fact is, things in Baghdad are not good.

What that has prompted is a change in strategy. We have undertaken a new strategy. That strategy, of course, is something where the Democrats in the Senate--less Senator Lieberman--and a handful of Republicans have decided to put together a resolution to oppose. That resolution, in my view, is an absolutely wrong way to approach what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq today, but it is obviously their prerogative to be able to do that. I think they ought to get a vote on it. I will not vote with them. I disagree, as I said, intensely with that resolution and its message. I know many of my colleagues on the other side intend that message to be different than it is perceived by our troops and by our enemies, but I think what we have to contend with here when we send a message like that is, how is that perceived by those audiences that are going to be impacted by it and, namely, our troops, the young men and women who wear the uniform, and, of course, obviously, the enemy they are trying to fight? It is the absolute wrong message to send at the very time our troops are embarking on a new mission.

This may be our last shot at success in Iraq. We have a new commander, GEN David Petraeus, whom my colleague from Kansas just mentioned. We have new rules of engagement on the ground in Baghdad, and we have new conditions for the Iraqis to meet. They have to take on the militias. There are military benchmarks they have to meet. There are economic benchmarks. They have to figure out a way to divide the oil revenues. They have agreed to invest $10 billion in infrastructure. There are political benchmarks they have to meet, holding provincial elections.

There have been resolutions offered on the floor that address those benchmarks but at the same time express support for this mission. Everyone agrees on the consequences of failure. As, again, my colleague from Kansas so very eloquently pointed out, it would be a humanitarian disaster in Iraq--possible genocide, possible full-blown civil war at a minimum regional instability, Shiite versus Shiite, Sunni versus Shiite; an increase in Iranian power on the Arabian peninsula. I do not know if this new strategy is going to work, but I do know this: We owe it to those who have sacrificed so much to achieve success in that mission already to make sure we give this strategy an opportunity to work.

I mentioned yesterday that I attended a couple of National Guard welcoming-home ceremonies over the weekend in my home State of South Dakota, one of which was Charlie Battery, a unit which was deployed to Iraq for over a year and a unit which was hit incredibly hard. They were in a very dangerous area in Baghdad going about the mission of trying to train the Iraqi security police in that area. Because of some IEDs, we lost four of those young men. And their families--as I visit with them--cannot help but show the pain they are experiencing and yet the incredible sense of loyalty and duty they feel to their country and to the missions and what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. Two others of those were soldiers, one seriously injured, another also injured, both recovering from those injuries. But the point, very simply, is there is a cost to what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. Many of our troops have already borne that cost. The point, very simply, is their sacrifice should not be in vain.

The troops we are sending now into this region are going whether we like it or not and irrespective of what the Senate does. The Senate will be sending them a vote of no confidence if we adopt a resolution saying: We support you, but we do not believe you can achieve victory, we do not believe you can accomplish your mission there in Iraq, we do not believe you can win.

On the substance, that resolution is a bad idea, but, more importantly, it seems to me it was designed more as a political statement. That came into full view yesterday when the Republican leader gave the Democratic leader exactly what they had wanted, which was a debate here on the floor of the Senate on two resolutions. We insisted on more resolutions. As my colleague from Kansas said, we wanted to have a debate on the Warner resolution, on the McCain resolution, on the Gregg resolution, even on the Feingold resolution. As I said, we could all decide how we are going to vote, but we would enter into that debate. And there ought to be, if there is going to be a debate in the Senate, a full debate. But, frankly, the Democrats objected to even debating two resolutions, the Warner resolution and the alternative Gregg resolution, because that would have forced them to vote on funding, a vote they did not want to have.

The American people deserve a full debate, not a one-sided debate, not a debate in which one side dictates the terms. This ought to be a debate about the full range of options that are available, the full views of the Members of this body who represent their constituencies across this country.

I heard one of my colleagues say--last week, I think it was, on the Democratic side--they wanted a full-throated debate. Well, we saw what a hoax that was yesterday. The agenda was exposed, and the charade about a full-throated debate came to a crashing halt.

The American people and the Members of this body deserve a debate. This is the most important issue of our time. As I said earlier, young Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. But if we are going to debate this issue in the Senate, let's make this debate about substance, not about political statements. Let's make sure all the views in this body are heard.

We tried to do that yesterday by essentially agreeing to what the Democratic leadership had asked for; that is, two resolutions, the Warner resolution, which I happen to disagree with and would vote against, and an alternative resolution that would address the issue of funding. The Democrats objected to that. I hope that if this issue reemerges on the floor of the Senate that it not be a one-sided debate, it be a full debate, so the American people and those families who have sacrificed so much for this cause get the debate they deserve and an opportunity to have their views heard on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I thank you and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, yesterday, by a vote of 49 to 47, a cloture motion failed that would have essentially cut off a broader debate on the big issue of the day; that is, how are we going to deal with the situation in Iraq? I think the vote failed not because, as was reported in some newspapers, Republicans did not want to debate the issue but, rather, because we want a full debate on the issue.

The importance of this issue and the stakes associated with its outcome warrant a full debate, not one restricted by one party in the Senate. The full range of views on this issue deserves to be heard. They deserve a voice in the Senate. The American people deserve that debate. And surely, the Americans in uniform who are fighting and dying deserve that debate in the Senate.

Saturday, I attended two welcome home ceremonies for National Guard units. Both performed superbly in fighting the global war on terror. The 114th Air Wing, a National Guard unit

in Sioux Falls, SD, has been deployed all over the planet. They have been in Afghanistan. They have been in Iraq--16 different places since 2001, after the terrorist attacks, in each case performing with distinction. They support an F-16 mission and have been utilized extensively. In fact, 72 percent, I believe, of all the members of that unit have been deployed someplace in the last 5 years, as we have been fighting this war on terror.

They and their families deserve a debate in the Senate about the future of that mission they have been undertaking. There has been a lot of debate around the country, a lot of debate in Washington about what to do next. We have now before us a plan which is a change of strategy. It incorporates more involvement by the Iraqi security forces in terms of their military. Also, their political structures, their Government has certain benchmarks it has to meet and economic requirements they have to comply with regarding the division, distribution of oil revenues--a whole range of things that have given us a new opportunity, a new opening to get this right with the situation in Iraq.

I believe the families of those who have served and sacrificed certainly deserve to have a full debate, not a restricted debate, in the Senate, a full debate where the full range of views, the full range of options that are held by the American people can be adequately voiced.

I also attended a welcoming home ceremony for the 147th Field Artillery, 1st Battalion, Charlie Battery, in Yankton, SD. This is a unit which has contributed mightily to the war on terror and suffered greatly. They have had four members of their unit who never came back, killed by IEDs: SGT Richard Schild, SGT Daniel Cuka, SGT Allen Kokesh, and SGT Greg Wagner--young Americans who will never be with their families again.

Also, they had a young sergeant in their unit who has suffered debilitating injuries, brain injuries that he continues to receive intensive medical treatment for and perhaps will never be the same. They had a young specialist, Brian Knigge from Plankinton, SD, who suffered injuries from which he is still recovering.

They are a unit that has suffered greatly in this war on terror. Yet there is a tremendous resilience and commitment and dedication to the mission. The area in which they were involved was the training of Iraqi security forces, specifically the Iraqi police, in the area of Baghdad, which is why it was so very dangerous for them. And the IEDs that have killed and seriously injured so many of our young American soldiers who are serving in that region did four of their comrades in. And as I said, a couple are very seriously injured.

They and their families who have sacrificed so greatly--and when I go to these events, I, obviously, have opportunities to interact with the families, with those whom these soldiers left behind. It is heartbreaking to see the separation, the consequence, and the cost of war. Yet at the same time, we have to realize when we get into a conflict like this, it is not just about what we are doing today, it is about securing a better, safer, more secure future for the next generation of Americans.

That is why this debate is so important. Many have argued what is happening today in the Middle East, in Iraq, is simply a regional conflict or a conflict between different sects within Iraq. But, frankly, we all know this--you do not have to be a rocket scientist to see what happens when these terrorist organizations are left free to prey in areas such as that, where there is not a lot of control and security. They begin to use these places as sanctuaries and safe havens to launch attacks against other places across the world, including the United States.

It is important, in this global war on terror, that we understand what the consequences and stakes of our failure are. I believe that is why, when we have a debate, we need to have a debate that reflects the full range of options and the full range of views that are available to the Senate when it comes to the future of Iraq--again, the discussion about consequences of failure, the discussion about plans going forward.

Right now we have a plan in front of us. We have a strategy that has been put forward by the President and his commanders in the region. We have a new commander on the ground, General Petraeus. We have some new troops heading into the area. There are changes in the rules of engagement. This may be our last best shot, our last best hope of being able to get this right.

We have engaged in this debate in the Senate which, again, in my view, sends entirely the wrong signal, the wrong message to our troops and to our enemies who interpret these messages that we send as a lack of resolve, a lack of will to finish what we started. More importantly, ultimately, the reason this has such great weight and gravity is that the people who are the primary receivers of the messages we send are the troops in the field. It is very difficult to say to those troops who are day in and day out putting on the uniform of the United States, performing a mission that we have asked them to do, which we have pointed out has grave consequences not only for that immediate region but for the entire free world--if you look at the arc of extremism that branches from areas such as Afghanistan and al-Qaida to areas such as some of the terrorist organizations in Lebanon, in the Palestinian territories, all these terrorist organizations and attacks are orchestrated by organizations that want to kill and destroy Americans.

We have a responsibility in the debate to make sure that when we are putting young Americans in harm's way, we are allowing a debate to go forward that examines the full range of views, the full range of options that are available to the Senate. Frankly, the one that matters the most, in terms of the options we have as a nation and as the Senate, comes down to the issue of funding. Frankly, we don't have an opportunity in this debate to talk about the real tool the Senate has when it comes to this issue; that is, the issue of funding. We have nonbinding resolutions. Everybody wants to debate nonbinding resolutions. They are nonbinding, but they are not meaningless. They send a message that we are not supportive of the mission our troops are undertaking.

But if the Senate is serious about doing its work, and if there are well-meaning and thoughtful people on the other side of the aisle who want to have this debate, then we ought to get down to what real options, what the real tools are at the disposal of the Senate when it comes to having any kind of a role in what happens in the future of Iraq. That is the issue of funding.

The leadership on the other side has said: We are not going to allow you to have a debate that includes that option, that includes the other options proposed, some from the other side that have talked about troop caps, withdrawal timelines.

Ultimately, fundamentally, if the other side is serious, let's have a debate about funding because that is the tool the Congress has at its disposal. If that is not a part of the debate, we are not serious about this debate or the range of options that ought to be heard and voiced in the Senate.

I see I have other colleagues who want to speak on this issue.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the University of Sioux Falls Cougars football team for winning the 2006 NAIA National Football Championship. I would also like to recognize their coach, Kalen DeBoer, for being named the NAIA Football Coach of the Year. The Cougars championship victory in December marked the second national football title for the school in the past 10 years.

This group of young men had an extraordinary season capped by a 23- to-19 victory over the previously unbeaten University of Saint Francis. That championship victory ensured the Cougars an undefeated season and the first football title since 1996. The University of Sioux Falls did not achieve a No. 1 ranking throughout the entirety of the 2006 season. Their championship was won on the field, not in the polls.

Coach DeBoer was able to achieve this victory in just his second year as head coach of the Cougars. He succeeded legendary coach Bob Young. Under the tutelage of Coach Young, and continued now by Coach DeBoer, the University of Sioux Falls has emerged as one of the premier football institutions in the country. Over the past 10 seasons, the Cougars have amassed a 103 to 19 record while capturing eight conference titles. Faith, loyalty, commitment, and teamwork have served as the foundation to building this tradition of excellence.

The 2006 Cougars were led to the title thanks to the work of an explosive offense and a powerful defense. They averaged nearly 39 points per game while allowing only seven. Leading the way for the Cougars this season were Chad Cavender, Mike Dvoracek, Dusty Hovorka, and Trey Erickson. These four were selected to the first-team of the 2006 NAIA All-American football team. This marks the first time in University of Sioux Falls history that four players have represented the school on the first-team. Also, five Cougars earned NAIA All- American honorable mention honors. These players were Zach Campbell, Josiah Fenceroy, Jason Glasco, Letarius Lee, and Adam Paulson.

Many of the players from this year's team have spent the last 4 years as teammates. The sixteen current University of Sioux Falls seniors have compiled a remarkable 48 to 4 record, including three Great Plains Athletic Conference championships, four NAIA Championship Series appearances, and the 2006 NAIA Football Championship. This group of student-athletes should be very proud of their impressive accomplishments over the past years.

The coaching staff, in alphabetical order, is as follows: Jon Anderson, Adam Breske, Al Christensen, Kalen DeBoer, Jeff Fitzgerald, Nick Fulton, Tom Grogan, Al Hansen, Chuck Morrell, Nate Moser, and Kurtiss Riggs.

The team, in alphabetical order, is as follows: Blake Andersen, Alex Anderson, Drew Anderson, Kyle Anderson, Jeremy Barnes, Bret Beachner, Nick Benedetto, Trevor Bowers, Curtis Brown, Tyson Brown, Zach Campbell, Doug Carlson, Luke Castle, Chad Cavender, Max Chapman, Erik Cimpl, Ross Cimpl, Kyle Cummings, Josh Daniels, Drew DeGroot, Dan DeJong, Glen Dirksen, Kyle Dreckman, Michael Dvoracek, Ernest Eaton, Brett Elgersma, Trey Erickson, Nate Everett, Josiah Fenceroy, Clint Fischer, Jason Glasco, Aaron Gunderson, Mike Hartley, Luke Hartman, Nick Haub, Adam Henglefelt, Trevor Holleman, Cameron Horton, Dusty Hovorka, Aaron Jensen, Gregg Jensen, James Johnikin, Matt Johnson, Joel Kelpe, Kyle Kidd, Blake Klinsing, Brandon Koolstra, Todd Kutter, Ty Larson, Letarius Lee, John Lentz, Matt Lindgren, Tyler Lodermeier, Ryan Lowmiller, Brad Maag, Lane Mellegaard, Matt Miller, Dan Moe, Joe Moen, Tyler Mousel, A.J. Munger, Scott Neu, Tyler Newman, Matt Norgaard, Jeff Nuzum, Chris Opitz, Cody O'Reilly, Aaron Parker, Adam Paulson, Adam Perry, Weston Peterson, Darren Quaile, Nick Ramstad, Jim Rawhouser, Kyle Robertson, Jon Ross, Jon Ryan, Dan Schmeichel, Shawn Schnabel, Andrew Schoenfelder, Brady Schwebach, Brandon Sexton, George Sperry, Alex Staebell, Dominic Studzinski, Robb Tiff, D.J. Tille, Chad Traver, Brent Tuxhorn, Brooks Underberg, Derek Varin, Josh Veurink, Michael Warren, Keegan Warwick, T.J. Wendt, Ben Westerfield, Brandon Williams, and Alex Woolbright.

I congratulate the men who won this National Championship and the coaches who led the way. The University of Sioux Falls football team has proven that they are strong competitors and dedicated athletes. On behalf of the city of Sioux Falls and the state of South Dakota, I am pleased to say congratulations, Cougars. You have made us all very proud.

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

Mr. President, today I recognize Rodney Kraft, Eric Anderson, Nick Hodgin, and Cecilia Cedeno, all of whom received the Founder's Award for Outstanding Achievement from the Black Hills Workshop in Rapid City, SD. This is a prestigious award that reflects the recipients' hard work and dedication to achieving independent living. It also reflects the valuable role they have played in giving back to their local community.

Rodney Kraft has worked as a clerk at Ellsworth Air Force Base's supply store for the past 10 years. He is a dependable worker who is well liked by his fellow staff members and customers. Rodney also has a vast knowledge of computers which makes him an excellent resource for his coworkers.

Eric Anderson is a food service attendant at Ellsworth Air Force Base's Bandit Inn. He has been an excellent addition to their staff and has been rewarded for his hard work by receiving the Employee of the Month and Employee of the Quarter awards. He has recently completed his first degree brown belt in jujitsu and hopes to someday earn his black belt.

Nick Hodgin is an enthusiastic member of the janitorial team at Ellsworth AFB. In the past year, Nick has been promoted from a being a member of a supervised crew to working independently. Nick also loves working on diesel engines and is currently preparing to take the entrance exam for Western Dakota Technical Institute. In his spare time, he volunteers with the Black Hills Humane Society.

Cecelia Cedeno has recently retired from her work as a dishwasher at the Corn Exchange Restaurant in Rapid City, SD. As a dishwasher, Cecelia was praised by her employer for her strong work ethic and her kindness to the other staff members. Since her retirement, she has been spending part of the year visiting family in Arizona and the rest of her time enjoying her time in Rapid City.

It gives me great pleasure to rise with Rodney Kraft, Eric Anderson, Nick Hodgin, and Cecilia Cedeno to congratulate them on receiving these well-earned awards and wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I honor Sharon Richie of Watertown, SD. This month Sharon retired from the U.S. Department of Agriculture after 17 years of dedicated Federal service.

Sharon has worked in the multifamily housing program in Watertown for the past 15 years and is well-known and appreciated by the managers of the housing projects. She has been a dedicated employee and is well- respected for her knowledge of the program and her willingness to go the extra mile to assist her clients. Sharon has played an integral role in providing housing for low-income tenants in South Dakota throughout her career.

Sharon has also been an active member of the Watertown community. Prior to working for the Department of Agriculture, Sharon was a hairdresser for 25 years, as well as being a teacher's aid and substitute teacher for the Deuel School System. She also managed a supper club in Clear Lake and Altamont.

In addition, Sharon has been a valuable asset to South Dakota's agricultural community. Over the past years, she has worked facilitating several rodeos throughout the region. She has organized and judged several rodeo queen contests for groups including the PRCA, local high school and 4-H rodeos. Sharon also enjoys helping out her husband Cork with their livestock handling equipment business. She is also a mother of 9 children, a grandmother to 23 grandchildren, and a great-grandmother to 2 great-grandchildren.

It is with great honor that I rise today to remember and recognize the service provided by Sharon Richie. On behalf of the citizens of South Dakota, I wish Sharon Richie all the best in her retirement.

Mr. President, today I recognize Lester Karas who was honored by the community of Deadwood for his dedicated service to the community's young people. The Deadwood mayor declared December 5, 2006, Les Karas Day in honor of his outstanding commitment and dedication to the safety of the community's elementary school students.

Mr. Karas serves as a volunteer crossing-guard for the students of Lead-Deadwood Elementary school. He plays an important role in keeping these students safe as they travel back and forth from school. In addition, Mr. Karas teaches the children good safety habits that they will use throughout their lives.

South Dakota's communities are held together by volunteers like Mr. Karas who dedicate their time and energy to helping those around them. It gives me great pleasure to commemorate Lester Karas on this special occasion and to wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize MSG Larry Perry of Bruce, SD, who was recently awarded the Purple Heart Medal at Camp Clark in Afghanistan for injuries he incurred while on patrol.

Master Sergeant Perry is married and has two sons. He has served with the National Guard for more than 18 years. He is a member of the 147th Field Artillery Brigade of the South Dakota Army National Guard and is currently the 203rd Regional Corps Assistance Group, RCAG, 1st Brigade Motor Officer. Master Sergeant Perry's service in Afghanistan is part of the efforts to train and mentor members of the newly organized Afghan National Army. The brigade trains Afghani soldiers in areas such as intelligence, communications, logistics, maintenance, military operations, and leadership skills. These necessary skills are allowing the Afghan National Army to operate independently as a professional force to curb terrorist attacks, provide safety and security for its citizens, and participate as an important ally in the war on terror.

On the morning of September 25, 2006, Master Sergeant Perry was serving as a gunner in the turret of a Humvee in Khowst Province when a suicide car bomb exploded alongside his convoy. The explosion sent shrapnel into his shoulder, and he suffered burns to his face and neck.

Master Sergeant Perry and his fellow soldiers face such dangers every day, and their willingness to put themselves in harm's way for the American and Afghani people is truly humbling. I, along with the citizens of South Dakota and the entire United States, owe Master Sergeant Perry a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay. We honor Master Sergeant Perry for his patriotism, bravery, and selflessness, and we applaud his courage in the face of danger.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Donald D. Junck of Sioux Falls, SD. In November of 2006, Donald submitted the one-millionth Trademark Electronic Application System, TEAS, filing.

Donald currently owns two small businesses in Sioux Falls, SD: a construction company and a laser engraving company. He used TEAS to protect the name and logo of his mark, Bait Craft, which is used for his unique, handcrafted fishing tackle boxes. Fishing and other outdoor activities are an important part of South Dakota's heritage and are vital to our State's economy. Fishermen have spent $173 million and hunters $193 million in South Dakota over the last 5 years. TEAS has helped Donald and many others in our State achieve the entrepreneurial success that creates jobs and keeps our economy moving forward.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, opened TEAS on a worldwide basis in 1998. TEAS is a cost-effective way to increase access and participation in the trademark process. This system allows trademark applicants, such as Donald Junck, to file an application at anytime and from any location with Internet access. TEAS has been a vital conduit in helping South Dakota's entrepreneurs protect their investments and improve their businesses.

Today, along with the USPTO and Donald Junck's friends, family, and colleagues, I wish to recognize his most recent trademark application and the milestone one-millionth TEAS filing.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Thune and Mr. Salazar pertaining to the introduction of S. 331 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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