Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Jim Webb, to introduce legislation that seeks to establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library.

President Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, VA, in 1856. He was first elected to the Presidency in 1912 and was reelected in 1916. Throughout his lifetime, Wilson advocated engagement with other nations in the search for peace, expansion of economic opportunities to more Americans, commitment to democratic principles at home and abroad, and protection of the Nation's people and institutions. He created the Federal Reserve and was President when women were finally granted the right to vote. President Wilson's legacy and historical significance are forever linked with his profound efforts in World War I and its aftermath, particularly with his attempts to broker a lasting peace in a fractured Europe. He was a man of ideals, always maintaining a ``simple faith in the freedom of democracy.'' It is the utter strength of his faith in democracy that continues to inspire our Nation today.

During my time in the Senate, I have witnessed the growth and development of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library and have seen firsthand the benefits it has provided for its community, the Commonwealth, and the country. The library has done remarkable work in preserving and protecting historical documents related to Woodrow Wilson's life. Equally remarkable has been its ability to share his life with communities around the world.

As you know, Virginia is often referred to as the ``Birthplace of Presidents,'' as it has produced more Presidents than any other State in the Union, eight in total. I want to respectfully acknowledge our most recent President from the Commonwealth of Virginia through the recognition of this Presidential library. I can think of no better place to preserve his life's work than where his life began.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to honor President Wilson's legacy by joining me in support of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Jim Webb, to introduce legislation that seeks to establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library.

President Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, VA, in 1856. He was first elected to the Presidency in 1912 and was reelected in 1916. Throughout his lifetime, Wilson advocated engagement with other nations in the search for peace, expansion of economic opportunities to more Americans, commitment to democratic principles at home and abroad, and protection of the Nation's people and institutions. He created the Federal Reserve and was President when women were finally granted the right to vote. President Wilson's legacy and historical significance are forever linked with his profound efforts in World War I and its aftermath, particularly with his attempts to broker a lasting peace in a fractured Europe. He was a man of ideals, always maintaining a ``simple faith in the freedom of democracy.'' It is the utter strength of his faith in democracy that continues to inspire our Nation today.

During my time in the Senate, I have witnessed the growth and development of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library and have seen firsthand the benefits it has provided for its community, the Commonwealth, and the country. The library has done remarkable work in preserving and protecting historical documents related to Woodrow Wilson's life. Equally remarkable has been its ability to share his life with communities around the world.

As you know, Virginia is often referred to as the ``Birthplace of Presidents,'' as it has produced more Presidents than any other State in the Union, eight in total. I want to respectfully acknowledge our most recent President from the Commonwealth of Virginia through the recognition of this Presidential library. I can think of no better place to preserve his life's work than where his life began.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to honor President Wilson's legacy by joining me in support of this bill.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I wish to particularly thank the managers of this bill. In my 29 years here in the Senate, I have stood on the floor many times with Senator Kennedy, but at this time, we are absolutely joined in this magnificent piece of legislation which I submit on behalf of Senator Kerry and Senator Webb and many other Senators who have worked on it through the years.

To my good friend, Senator Enzi, I was once on his committee, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), but as we move around here, I just couldn't get on the HELP Committee this time around.

I commend Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy and their staffs for their very hard work in preparation of this amendment, and my staff, senior member Angela Stewart. Over the weekend, I was traveling, as many of our colleagues were in our respective States, and she and I must have had at least six to eight telephone calls over the period of 2 days, just working out refinements and protocol with regard to this amendment. I think it is a representation of the Senate. No matter whether we are here on the floor or wherever we may be, we constantly are working on the legislative proposals that many of us have from time to time.

Again, I wish to draw attention to the title of this particular amendment. First, I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, it is entitled, ``Minority Serving Institutions for Advanced Technology and Education,'' amendment to S. 1642, The Higher Education Act Amendments of 2007.

I remember in the 1980s, traveling to several of the historically-- and they referred to them as ``historically Black colleges'' in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I noticed the absence of so much infrastructure in these struggling institutions that other institutions often had in abundance. Having had an engineering background myself, at my old school, Washington Lee University, we had laboratories with an abundance of equipment and all types of high technology.

I suppose at that time the thoughts in my mind led toward this day, and it has been a long climb up the mountain--not by just this Senator from Virginia but by many, many Senators. I remember Senator Cleland was very interested in this, former Senator Cleland, Max Cleland of Georgia, and my colleague and former Senator George Allen of Virginia. Fortunately, today, with the two managers of this bill, the chairman and ranking member of this important committee, the HELP Committee, and with the help of many others and the primary cosponsor, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and my colleague from my State, Senator Webb, we are here this afternoon to present this amendment.

I first ask unanimous consent that those Senators who desire to put in statements regarding this amendment of course may do so and that they be colocated in the Record following the introduction of this amendment.

Mr. President, it appears statistically that over 60 percent of the jobs in America, all across our land, require not only a basic knowledge but really an advanced skill in what we refer to as ``information technology.'' Jobs in this area, frankly, pay and command higher salaries. Today, as I said, many of the minority serving institutions--this covers a wide group of institutions which I will address later in my text, but the minority serving institutions simply lack the resources, the necessary capital, endowments, and all types of financing that go into these institutions to acquire the basic equipment, whether it is an actual computer itself, or the technology to hook it into systems, and they also need technology capabilities in their classrooms, dormitories and libraries. It is for that purpose we are asking the Senate today to support this bill to provide the sum of money for 5 consecutive years to form a competitive grant program so this wide range of institutions may compete for this pot of money and hopefully obtain it for their respective institutions.

We need to bridge--and I use the term the ``digital divide'' to help students who want to develop the skills necessary to succeed in a technology-based economy so that they can compete in today's modern world and take these jobs, which, incidentally, are badly needed in the workforce, and therefore get salary and perhaps a step up on the ladder of development of their career. This is definitely a bipartisan amendment and, as I said with the deepest sense of humility, many, many Senators have worked toward this day.

Specifically, the legislation will establish, as I said, a grant program for these institutions of higher learning to bring increased access to computers, technology, and the Internet to their student populations. Institutions can use funds to acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, digital network technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure to develop and provide these educational services. In addition, the grants can be used for such activities as campus wiring, equipment upgrades, and technology training. Finally, Minority Serving Institutions could use these funds to offer their students universal access to campus networks, thereby increasing connectivity and making infrastructure improvements.

Moreover, much has been said in this education debate about the importance of math and science education. I remember well, I and other Senators 2 years ago were authors of the SMART grant program, which provides stipends to economically disadvantaged students in their third and fourth year of college or university training who elect to study critical majors in math, science, and engineering and key foreign languages. We must now begin to encourage and provide for those students who want to start earlier than their third and fourth year and begin to enter and study these critical fields, not only of math and science but of high tech.

I point out, I remember very well when I came out of the Navy at the end of World War II, I had the GI bill, and I went to my university--a small one--and they had a very small engineering department at that time. The engineering department is now gone because it couldn't take the competition of larger schools. But I remember so well we would go into the laboratories in the afternoon and spend long hours. We didn't have any air-conditioning, so we opened the windows, obviously. You could hear the other students out on the playing fields enjoying all kinds of sports and other things while we were there laboring over the laboratory requirements. Then, at night, of course, we all had the obligatory homework. It seems to me that those of us who were in the high-tech and the math--I was a math major and physics major--we would spend endless, long hours on our homework.

I bring that up not to in any way eulogize myself and my career but simply to say that those students who want to dedicate that extra time to study in the high-tech world--and it does require extra time, thereby giving up some of the pleasures in life--we ought to have the proper equipment available for all of them.

The National Science Foundation reports that the percentage of bachelor's degrees in science and engineering across America has been declining. Many a time I and other Members of this body have pointed out how America is falling behind, particularly with reference to India and to China, as such a higher percentage of their university graduates are following the high-tech careers. So let's give a leg-up to those young people who want to devote that extra time, that extra motivation in their studies for these specialties in math, science, and technology.

This amendment also addresses the shortage of qualified professionals that teach courses in these areas. You simply have to have not only the hardware within the institution but knowledgeable teachers and professors, and this amendment provides an inducement for their training.

As I said, I am proud to say that my great State is home to six institutions that qualify for this grant program. Throughout the years that I have been in the Senate, they have proudly been referred to as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, known as the HBCUs: Norfolk State University, St. Paul's College, Virginia University of Lynchburg, Virginia Union University, Hampton University, and Virginia State University. Right now, at this point, I thank all of the faculty and presidents of those institutions and administrators who through these many years, year after year, have come into my office pleading for this modest program to help them put in the infrastructure and gain the teaching faculty to help the students who want to pursue these careers in science, math, and technology. Likewise, all across America, Minority Serving Institutions will

qualify for this grant program. There are over 200 Hispanic-Serving Institutions, over 100 Historically Black Colleges outside of Virginia, and over 30 Tribal Colleges throughout the United States. In addition, Alaska Native-serving institutions and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions are also eligible for these grants.

In the mid-1980s, on the campus of St. Paul's, my first thoughts regarding the growing disparity between Historically Black Colleges and other institutions of higher education with respect to the infrastructure began leading up to this day.

This Senate has addressed similar pieces of legislation in the past year. In 2003, a similar bill passed in the Senate with a roll call vote of 97 to 0. In 2005, a similar bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. So I am pleased today, together with Senator Kerry and Senator Webb, to offer this not only on behalf of ourselves, but the many Senators who through the years--some who have now retired-- have worked hard on this legislation.

Again, I salute the faculty and presidents, and so forth, at these institutions and, most particularly, I salute the students who are ready and willing to seize the opportunity that this bill will provide to advance their intellectual skills to meet the requirements of today's workforce, so that America can be competitive.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend who has worked with me for these 29 years. Following Senator Enzi, I wonder if I may have 2 minutes on one other point.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind remarks of the Senators. Mr. President, I will just tell a short story. Senator Kennedy mentioned the importance of this to the Armed Forces to have a pool of trained individuals to join the military today. I would like to contrast it to an early experience I had in life. In the winter of 1945, the war was raging in Europe--although it ended in May, it was still going on, as was the war in the Pacific. Like everybody else on my block, all students who were 17 and 18, we all joined the military. I don't claim to have a military career of any great consequence, but I will never forget the first night. We had been on a small train that stopped in stations all across the east coast picking up a dozen or two 17- and 18-year-olds on the train. It was cold as the dickens, and the train was chugging its way up to the Great Lakes.

We arrived at 2 or 3 in the morning. We were tired, cold, and huddled into a great big room. A petty officer, who was quite rotund, got up on a little platform and screamed at us, ``All you guys who can't read and write raise your hands.'' I had the benefit of a wonderful education in high school. I almost flipped out. I did not realize, really, that many people didn't have the basic skills that I had been given.

Then the petty officer said, ``All you smart so-and-sos fill out the forms for the others.'' About 20, 25 percent of the fellows came out of the coal mines and steel mills of Pennsylvania and up through the valley, where the train went picking up these guys. So we filled out the forms.

I want to say that those men had very short training once we got to the Great Lakes. The rest of us were shunted aside for technical schools. Within 90 days, they went aboard ships and right into the battle.

On those ships in those days there were dozens of jobs that persons who could not read and write could perform, and perform very well. In no way do I denigrate their abilities to fight, as they did bravely in World War II--those who could not read and write. Today's ship in the U.S. Navy--take a destroyer. The destroyers today are considerably larger than the destroyers of the past. But the crews are dramatically reduced in number, which means that every one of those naval persons today has to have high-tech skills. It is true also in the Army and Marine Corps.

When you visit Iraq and see the troops there, as most of us have, they are all working with high-tech equipment. There is no place available today in the military for one who is not skilled in high-tech work. So it is a changed society, albeit my story dates back more than a half century. They were fighters then, but in today's military we access those in the military with high school equivalent. The ones who show a technical proficiency are immediately moved into advanced technical courses.

So this legislation is laying the foundation for those in these institutions who so desire to join the U.S. military, and they will arrive on the first day not requiring a fellow soldier, sailor, airman, or marine to fill out their form. They are all smart and able to work with the high-tech equipment.

I yield the floor.

I object.

I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I am given an opportunity now, which I have been looking forward to, to have a little colloquy with my long-time friend, Senator Levin, now chairman of the committee, and address one or two issues to explain why I feel very strongly that I have to oppose this amendment.

Just 49 days ago, the President signed into law an appropriations bill which contained legislative language, which legislative language originated on the floor of the Senate. I was privileged to be a part of the drafting of that language, and it eventually has become now the law of the land. I would like to review some of the points we put in that language which is the law.

It, first, requires the President to come forward on July 15, which he did. He submitted an assessment of the benchmarks. It further directed that General Petraeus be here in September with Ambassador Crocker. It further called upon the new organization which was created in this most recent appropriations bill, again originating, this part of the legislation, on the floor of the Senate. We put together a requirement that there be an independent study group of the Iraq security forces.

We have periodically through the years received reports from the Department of Defense describing how many battalions of the Iraqi forces are trained, how many are equipped, how many are ready to take the point by themselves, how many are dependent on U.S. forces. That is quite an accumulation of data. I felt very strongly, and other colleagues did, that we wanted to have a report independent of the Department of Defense, and that report performed by individuals who had many years of experience assessing the capabilities of men and women in uniform.

How fortunate we were that the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Jones, offered to head that group. He formed a group of fellow officers, most of them three and four stars now retired, who likewise have had years of experience and training in evaluating our Armed Forces. And they added two police chiefs. They just finished this past weekend. They returned on Saturday from a 1-week trip to Iraq to study the forces.

Part of the law requires that they come forward with a report. And I am pleased to say, having consulted with General Jones, that report will be available early in September, such that the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and others can take it into consideration as they formulate the sequential requirement of the President to come forth and report to America, the Congress, and his people his opinion of the situation in Iraq as of September 15 of this year.

It is for that reason that I believe we should hold in place additional legislation at this time until the President has had the opportunity, that Congress has had the opportunity, and, most importantly, the American people have had the opportunity to study all of these facts provided by the professionals.

I would like to also add that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, has also stated he will have a report, his own assessment, of the situation over there, and his assessment of the Iraq security forces; that is, both military and police, prepared for that September timeframe. So that is the focal point.

I say with deep respect to my colleague, Senator Levin, chairman of the committee, which I am proud to have served on now 29 years with Senator Levin, side by side, that it seems to me we have passed a law where we put in the process by which America would proceed to the 15th of September, at which time the President will report to the Nation about such changes as he deems--the President, as Commander in Chief, exercising his clear authority under the Constitution, to change or revise the strategy and how our forces will be implemented in the future.

Later this evening, perhaps when I have further time, I will address the Warner-Lugar amendment, which goes into some detail about our recommendations to the President--I repeat: recommendations. Not directing him as a matter of law--on that report on 15 September; to include certain items in it. But the point I wish to make is I feel that if the Senate were to adopt, by way of a vote--which now requires 60 votes--the Levin amendment, it would be in contravention to the very spirit, letter, and purpose of the law that this body adopted 49 days ago. That would bring about confusion in the minds of the troops, confusion in the minds of the world.

How can America take such a zigzag course in legislation at such a critical time in our history, while trying to provide the Iraqi people with a stable situation so they can have some measurable quality of life and freedom and move ahead and hopefully have a nation that will join other nations in the world in our struggle against terrorism? That is my main concern.

I also point out that my good friend, Senator Levin, voted for the Cornyn amendment, which we adopted this morning, and among the findings are, as follows: The Cornyn amendment, which Senator Levin and I, and 90-some other Senators supported, stated:

A failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for

Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda.

We read today in the National Intelligence Estimate addressing the potential of al-Qaida and how so much of that potential is directed, clearly, at the United States.

The Cornyn amendment also said:

The Iraq Study Group report found that ``(a) chaotic Iraq--

should we have a precipitous pullout--

could provide a still stronger base of operations for

terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally.''

Further, the Cornyn amendment recited:

A National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the

consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be

that--(A) Al Qaeda would attempt to use Anbar province to

plan further attacks outside of Iraq; (B) neighboring

countries would consider actively intervening in Iraq; and

(C) sectarian violence would significantly increase in Iraq,

accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement.

Now, I read that because my valued friend, Senator Levin, appeared last night on a national program, the Jim Lehrer show, and he was asked repeatedly in that interview about how he would envision an Iraq having to experience a withdrawal timetable, which is fixed in his amendment. How would Iraq be, once that timetable went into effect and those troops would withdraw? I read through very carefully the transcript, which I have here, and I cannot find in there the specific references, much like what was in the Cornyn amendment. It seems to me there might be some disconnect between what you said publicly last night and the document to which you attached your vote in support today.

So I would like to entertain a colloquy and have my good friend explain how he envisions what the consequences to Iraq would be should his amendment be law eventually. We would first have to pass it here and then it would have to go to a conference with the House and then survive and become a part of the conference report.

Well, Mr. President, the amendment which I worked on and which went into the appropriations bill, those are the same benchmarks in that bill.

Well, they track, in large measure, the same.

I would say to my colleague, the President, when he enunciated his new policy on January 10, the purpose was to lay a foundation of security such that the Iraqi Government could perform in a manner given that the security is very serious in Iraq.

Even though I had misgivings about the surge, I put those aside once the President had made a decision to go forward. I wish to support the troops, and they are carrying out this mission. I think there is a strong chance there will be some measure of achievement of the surge militarily.

I agree with my colleague, the performance of the Iraqi Government to date has been extraordinarily disappointing. I have stated that on this floor a number of times, as have other colleagues. But the point I wish to urge is that if we were to take--tomorrow, for example--and begin to change the intentions of the Senate, which were expressed in law 49 days ago, and suddenly announce a withdrawal program, as the distinguished Senator from Michigan has in his amendment, it would be perceived as an undercut to the very military operation we are trying to bring about now.

Why can't we wait until September, until the President has had the benefit of all the convergence of this information, and then, as a body, review his remarks and statements and possibly change the strategy subsequent to the 15th of September? Because I do believe that your amendment is in conflict with what we did 49 days ago.

Yes.

That is correct.

Well, Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. McCain, in his remarks of this morning, made it very clear that the President made it very clear, if we proceed with the course of adopting your amendment, then there will be another veto, and then we are back into that sequence and a veto on a bill which you and I have worked on for these 29 years.

How many times have we been on the floor supporting the annual authorization bill? We have gotten a bill each of those 29 years that we have been on that committee. This will be the first time a President was compelled to veto it because he is repeating his actions he took earlier, 2 months ago.

Mr. President, the Senator is correct, that Government has not performed. But we, 49 days ago, structured a careful sequence of events between now and September to make certain the information, the facts, the opinions, the conclusions which would guide the President in that revision of strategy the distinguished Senator McConnell made observation about some time ago, that information is converging at that very point in time.

I say to the Senator, we are so close. I would not want to see the Congress disrupt what it has already enacted and put it into law as to what is to take place in September. It is for that reason I simply cannot support my distinguished colleague from Michigan.

Mr. President, I will conclude my time and yield the floor because other colleagues sequentially are participating. Perhaps we will be able to reopen this colloquy at another time during the debate. But I certainly share with you the enormity of loss of life, the loss of limb, of the hardships of the military families. Even those families who fortunately have not suffered loss of life or limb nevertheless have repeated tours of duty and separations from their loved ones brought on by this war.

But I am concerned we might lose all of that which has been given if we make the wrong decision now and precipitously fix a date for pullout. All that sacrifice might be lost. I am certain my colleague shares with me that one of the goals we should have in this situation is to make certain those losses were not in vain.

Mr. President, my time is nearly up. It may not be enacted for 4 or 5 months, but the signal will go out of this Chamber, if we adopt your amendment, that the Senate, in less than 40 days, has changed the law that it passed a short time ago, and it looks like a zigzag course that this Nation is taking in one of the most serious situations in my lifetime--this situation in the Middle East. It is essential to our security that area of the world not implode.

I yield the floor to the other Senators who are scheduled to speak.

Reserving the right to object.

What is the order?

Would we have the benefit of an important discussion on your amendment?

I wish to address it, but as a matter of courtesy--we have been at this for 29 years--I am going to wait until you speak, and then I will speak.

We have been here many years together. We manage, even though we oppose each other. But I do oppose you on this one, my dear friend.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.

No objection.

Mr. President, would I be correct in saying this time is reserved for the distinguished Republican leader?

Mr. President, I do not see him present at the moment; therefore, if some other speaker, for a period of time, wishes to go forward--

Fine. I just wanted to accommodate any Senator who needed 5 minutes. I see none.

Mr. President, at some point, I would be privileged if I could enter into a colloquy with my valued friend. So at the proper juncture in his remarks, perhaps we could have a bit of a colloquy.

I thank my friend. We can have our debates, and we frequently do, on procedure, and it is very confusing, of course, to the American public. But these are old rules that go back, I might say with some sense of pride, to Thomas Jefferson. He had a hand in writing them. Somehow this magnificent institution, the Senate, has been able to serve our great Republic these 200-some-odd years.

Apart from procedure--and it seems to me I recall that at an earlier juncture in the spring when we were debating certain amendments on Iraq, the Senator from Virginia had an amendment. It got over 50 votes. It was a bipartisan amendment. That amendment, quite interesting, while it failed to reach the 60-vote margin, it was picked up by the appropriators and word for word written into the appropriations bill.

It required, among other things, that the President report on July 15. That report, I think, was of value. People can differ with it. I know it attracted a lot of attention and widespread press coverage. It was of value.

That report also set up an independent group. I consulted with my good friend, the chairman, Senator Levin, and told him I felt all the years we have been working together we get a lot of facts from the Pentagon about the status of Iraq's security forces. Shouldn't we have an independent group not affiliated with the Department of Defense--I am not, in any way, impugning the accuracy of their facts--have an independent group give us a second opinion.

GEN Jim Jones, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, offered to head up that group. I talked with him about it. He thought about it a long time. He decided to do it. He has about 18 individuals with military experience and two former police chiefs. They got back this weekend from a very intensive 1-week schedule studying these situations. So there is a great convergence of information that will be brought to bear and made public the first week in September.

But back to this question before us. The distinguished Republican leader put an amendment up. I would like to ask my distinguished colleague if he would cover with me the provisions and what his views are on some of the findings in the amendment.

This is a sense of the Senate on the consequences of a failed state in Iraq. Much of this material was put before the Senate a few days ago, filed by our distinguished colleague from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. Would the Senator from Illinois engage me in asking a few questions about it or is there another time he would be willing to do it?

Yes, of course, Mr. President.

For instance, the first finding:

A failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for

Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are

determined to attack the United States and United States

allies.

We know from experience in Afghanistan that bin Laden occupied a piece of territory there and set up his training camp. Much of the training that led to the horrific damage to our Nation, loss of life and property, occurred there--of course, September 11. Does the Senator not agree--I am curious, I would like to get some understanding of what the Senator's thoughts are on this sense of the Senate.

One other, Mr. President, was a bit longer. I am No. 2, kind of like the Senator from Illinois, No. 2.

Mr. President, I think the Senator is accurate. I have studied the Levin amendment. I am opposed to it because of the fixed timetables. But let's proceed to the second one. I think we have covered the first, and I find it very helpful.

The second finding:

The Iraq Study Group report found that ``[a] chaotic Iraq

could provide a still stronger base of operations for

terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally.''

To me that seems to have some basis in fact. Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. President, I appreciate that answer. I think there is a provision--as a matter of fact, the amendment Senator Lugar and I filed has very much the same language in it. Let's proceed to No. 3.

The Iraq Study Group noted that ``Al Qaeda will portray any

failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory

that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their

cause in the region and around the world.''

That concerns me. I think there is some truth to that statement.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator most respectfully, I know no one over here who wants to try to do a precipitous withdrawal or lessen our efforts against al-Qaida. As a matter of fact, we want to reinforce our efforts against al-Qaida. We can go back and argue the numerical presence of al-Qaida at the time we went in. I do recall that very vividly and conducted many hearings in the Armed Services Committee. Al-Qaida was not high on the scope. There was mention of it. We have to deal with the facts that exist now, and it is clear, for whatever reason, they are now in that area in significant numbers larger than when we went in. I, personally, feel it is not as a consequence of our military action thus far. They simply see the terrific divisions between the Sunni culture and the culture of the Shia, and they are trying to foment among those two venerable religious cultures as much fighting as they possibly can. I think we both have to agree, to that extent, they have been successful.

Clearly, al-Qaida has as its main goal, at such time as possible, to bring about further harm to the United States of America. There is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure there is no doubt in the mind of the Senator from Illinois. So I think anything that is portrayed as a failure of our commitment in Iraq could be utilized, as I said, for recruitment of their troops, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere in the world.

But I say, in response to my distinguished colleague, it is for that very reason the President is dispatching the Secretaries of State and Defense into that region, to bring that point very clearly, this problem which is being experienced in Iraq. And when

I say ``experienced,'' I mean devastating loss of life of Iraqi citizens, considerable loss of life of our own forces, and loss of limb. That is something which every Senator on both sides of the aisle is concerned with daily. But thus far, the bordering nations certainly have not stepped up, in my estimation, to take a constructive role. If anything, we have, in Syria and Iran, pretty convincing evidence that they are taking steps antithetical to bringing about a resolution of some sort of peace and stability in Iraq.

By far. I think it has been 90 percent----

--are associated with the Sunni perspective versus about 10 or less percent the Shia.

We have to decide on the facts as they exist now, and I think our Government has. But even in the recent words of the President, he wants to intensify the participation of other nations in this situation.

My colleague, Senator Lugar, in preparing our amendment--and he is quite expert in this area--has a considerable portion of our amendment--again, a sense of the Senate--directed at steps our country could be taking to augment those steps already taken. He recently met with the Secretary of State. They had a discussion here a few days ago, prior to our entering the amendment on this very matter. So we are moving forward.

I think my colleague and I have no difference on the need to involve the border states and other Muslim countries of responsibility.

We have to always monitor ourselves with the Constitution of the United States, and it explicitly gives to the President the power as Commander in Chief to direct our forces and to employ such strategy as he deems necessary to defend the security interests of our country. That is my concern with my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, and he and I have worked here in this Chamber now in our 29th year, for those following this debate. My concern is that Congress become involved in military strategy and writing into law precisely what is done. I think that is crossing a constitutional issue.

I would like to continue with my colleague.

I know the provision quite well. It is on the regulation.

I think you have about got it, if I may say.

No, we are on a coequal basis, as the Senator well knows.

Well, I remember on this floor and my distinguished colleague from Michigan remembers when Senator Byrd argued very persuasively about certain aspects of the famous War Powers Act. Now, if we bring all of that history into this debate, and it may well be that we should do that, the reason that subject was carefully considered by the Senate, passed, and became law many years ago--each President has acknowledged that in spirit they are complying with the directions of the Congress, but they do not want it put into law.

Well, I was going to speak on that later tonight when I address my colleagues and point to the Congressional Record today, which contains the amendment by Senator Lugar and myself. But, essentially, we bring to the attention of the Senate and provide the following language for the President, if I may read it, on page S 9224 of Friday's Congressional Record, in our section:

The findings that supported H.J. Res. 114, Public Law 107-

243, which was enacted in 2002 and which authorized the

President to use the Armed Forces of the United States

against Iraq, require review and revision.

So, Senator, I have gone on record, together with my colleague, Senator Lugar, that this is necessary, and we further call on the President--and I read the bill.

Reading section 3 of my amendment, and it is on page S 9224 of Friday's Congressional Record.

It is our amendment, it is on page 14 of our amendment.

The amendment is at the desk, on page 14.

I will hand you my copy.

I wanted to read the important second sentence--I actually wrote this provision myself; Senator Lugar concurred in it-- the second sentence, after addressing the fact that we felt it required review by the Congress of the United States. That is the one required under the appropriations bill language, which we passed here--not passed; 50-some-odd Senators voted for it when I put it up.

Therefore, as part of the September 15th, 2007, report,

Congress expects that the President will submit to Congress a

proposal to revise Public Law 107-243.

So Senator Lugar and I come foursquare and address that issue straight-on. There is concern. I was one of the four Senators who wrote the language, and if I may engage my colleagues, the law, 107-243, provided support for U.S. diplomatic efforts. That is section 2.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by

the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security

Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding

Iraq, and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security

Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,

evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies

with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Section 3. Authorization for the use of United States Armed

Forces.

That is the provision Senator Lugar and I address in our amendment. That authorization is very short, and I would like to engage in the reading of it.

Authorization for use of United States Armed Forces. The

President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United

States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in

order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States

against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council

resolutions regarding Iraq.

So one is the benchmark, the underlying statement by the Congress which gives rise to the actions today to support the President, but I believe that in view of all that has transpired in the nearly 5 years-- this will be 5 years since we passed this in October--it is the duty of the Congress to review it, and we have asked in our amendment for the President to come forth with proposals.

I think the President can still act within that language right there--defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. The Government of Iraq that existed at the time this was written is gone; that was Saddam Hussein. There is a new government there. But they, unfortunately, have not exercised the full control, the full reins of sovereignty that the people of Iraq, voting freely, have given them. We set up the structure, the infrastructure that enabled those votes to take place, and we gave them a measure of security so that they could go to the polls and vote. But, in my judgment, this language still underpins the President's actions.

I would remind the Senator, in a way, each authorization act of the armed services, since enactment of this law, in a sense de facto confirms the President's authority that he is exercising under it. We never challenged him in a single--I think I counted up 4 authorization bills and probably 10 different appropriations bills that have been passed authorizing the President to use these funds.

Again, it is sort of de facto recognition that the language still stands. But my thought is that the American people, the world is entitled to Congress addressing it and, hopefully, we can resolve it and put down in greater detail the authority that the Congress wishes to give the President as he moves forward, having hopefully given the Congress the benefit of such revisions in policy as he deems necessary in early October this year.

That is this bill we are discussing became law.

I said those words. I stand by those words. I said ``de facto'' because there was every available means in the course of the debate on our authorizations bill for colleagues to come and challenge this. No one did.

As a matter of fact, the first reference to this occurred when I was chairman of the committee and I remember, it was last fall--I think it was General Abizaid, I asked him about this very provision. It is in the Record. I said I was concerned about whether there was an obligation of Congress to go back and review this language and determine whether it comports with the various missions he was performing at the direction of the President.

I can't recall exactly what his responses were. But I did raise this. That is the very reason I asked Senator Lugar to join me in raising it again. I think it is incumbent upon the Congress to debate it. But we certainly have passed by and legislated many times, with full knowledge that this is the basis on which the funds we have appropriated are being utilized for the forces.

Madam President, we will go off the colloquy for that purpose?

Amendment No. 2252 to Amendment No. 2241

I thank my colleague. We did get part way into one of the pending amendments, and that is the amendment of Senator McConnell. I wish we had gotten one paragraph further and that is the National Intelligence Estimate, its conclusions. As a matter of fact, I understand another updated intelligence estimate is soon going to be received by the Congress and the American public. The National Intelligence Estimate states:

Al-Qaida would attempt to use Anbar province to plan

further attacks outside of Iraq;

Neighboring countries would consider actively intervening

in Iraq; and

Sectarian violence would significantly increase in Iraq

accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement.

That is my concern with the Levin amendment. If we go in and announce with concrete law as to what our tactics should be, and we have this fixed timetable, with all due respect to my friend, I cannot support that.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, if the distinguished leader will yield for a minute, I want to thank our colleague. I listened to his presentation and thank him for his reflections about the committee's work under the leadership of Senator Levin and Senator McCain on the underlying bill. Eventually, I presume, we will focus more attention on that, but it is important to the Senator's State.

The State of Colorado is one of the rocks in our overall defense system of this country, and I wish more people knew how important Colorado's citizens are in giving their support to our men and women of the Armed Forces who proudly serve us from that State. I thank the Senator for his contribution.

Amazing.

The citizens of your State have given 100 percent support to these military people all these years. They may miss a little bit of that airspace, but they are proud to have them there.

Mr. President, Nellis Air Force Base is well cared for in the current authorization bill before this body.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we, under our leadership of Senator McConnell, have a request for a rollcall vote on the Cornyn language. We would object to a unanimous consent request to agree to the amendment because there is a desire, a strong desire, to have a recorded vote on this important issue; that every Senator express his or her desire on this amendment.

Having said that, we also want to check with the sponsor of the amendment to see if he wanted to make further comments prior to a vote. Again, we are confident we would be prepared to set that vote for a reasonable time tomorrow after we consult with the proponent.

Therefore, I object to the request, and I propose we revisit this in the morning to see if we can find a time certain for a vote on the Cornyn language.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader for his understanding and the representation that we can resolve this issue tomorrow, and I know our leader is anxious to hopefully get through the various procedural matters relating to the underlying authorization bill so that can move forward.

Mr. President, might I ask the distinguished assistant Democratic leader, I believe that business for today is concluded with respect to consents from the other side. Am I not correct on that? We will have the benefit of the remarks of the distinguished Senator Reed, and then he will wrap up, including two resolutions which we have on this side; am I correct in that?

Is that the understanding?

I am told by the floor staff there will be no request for consents tonight.

I appreciate the assurances of the assistant leader.

Mr. President, might I inquire again as to the schedule of the vote?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I simply say, I intend to vote for this amendment. But let us not be unmindful of the enormity of the sacrifice of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States--and, indeed, perhaps with the assistance of other nations--in trying to ascertain exactly where bin Laden might be and perhaps to get him. So much of this, quite understandably, cannot be revealed, but I assure the American public that our U.S. military in no measure has been asleep in its pursuit of this infamous man, Osama bin Laden.

I yield the floor to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish also to accommodate the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, I concur in the distinguished chairman's observation. I wish to compliment you and the ranking member, Mr. McCain, for the progress you have made this

week on this bill. Having had this responsibility, sharing it with you for these many years, I would say the two of you have done exceptionally well.

Mr. President, also it is my intention--I am doing the final bit of drafting on an amendment by myself, with the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar. I hope to be filing that before 12 noon today.

No objection.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lugar, I send to the desk an amendment to H.R. 1585.

Mr. President, I ask that I be made a cosponsor of that resolution.

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

Madam President, I am very privileged to advise the Senate, working with the leadership on both sides, particularly Chairman Levin and Senator McCain and myself, that I am now able to ask the Senate to proceed to executive session to consider the Executive Calendar, No. 163; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Madam President, this nomination is for the Secretary of the U.S. Army, and it is essential that he be in position now. I am very pleased the Senate has taken this action.

There being no further business, Madam President, I suggest we return to the regular order of business.

Madam President, providing for our men and women in uniform, and their families, is our highest priority on the Armed Services Committee, and this bill will provide a comprehensive approach to caring for those, who through their courage, have sacrificed greatly for our country. Our Nation owes these brave men and women nothing less than the finest possible care.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

That is correct. I wonder if my colleague will yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, be recognized for a period of 15 minutes.

Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished managers, this amendment by Messrs. Salazar and Alexander is of considerable importance, and there are some of us who would like to comment on that.

Not as a part of that hour. I think they wish to have an hour reserved under the two principals together with their distinguished list of cosponsors. There are some of us who are not cosponsors who may have comments.

Well, it is simply that I have some concerns about the Salazar-Alexander amendment. I do not wish to encroach on such time as they wish, but it would seem to me those of us who may have some concerns should have the opportunity to speak in the proximity of their discussion so the Members would have the benefit of both views.

Mr. President, I would perhaps seek to have 10 minutes. That is all.

Might I inquire as to the floor? I understand it is available to anyone at this time; no time constraints? I would like to speak for a few minutes.

Fine. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I wish to commend the Presiding Officer for his work, as, indeed, my good friend, Senator Alexander, and this colleague.

I must state, with a sense of total modesty, that my contribution tonight would be just to express some concerns. I have followed the work of your group. Very kindly, the principals on this have invited me to join, but I have thus far not done so because I can't find yet the answers to some critical issues I have in mind.

First, I say to my colleagues that I had a little to do with starting the group now known as Baker-Hamilton, or the Iraq Study Group. I think I worked with my colleague who did the major part of the work, Congressman Frank Wolf, and then we engaged a local, highly recognized, and well-qualified group in Washington associated with studies to take on some of the infrastructure. It was a remarkable recruiting of talent, which my colleague recited, and I think they did a very credible and fine job.

It was a major contribution at a time in the fall of 2006 when there was a great deal of concern among many of us about the situation in Iraq. I had returned in that fall from a trip to Iraq and expressed publicly my thoughts that the country was just drifting aimlessly sideways, and that remark, together with remarks of others of a similar nature, sparked the intensity of the administration's undertaking their, I think, very thorough review leading up to the President's remarks when he announced a change in strategy on January 10, 2007.

Now, I have referred to the Iraq Study Group work. I think there were 7, 8, 9 months that they studied, with hearings and so forth. But when they put pen to paper and wrote it, it was a snapshot of the situation that faced this Nation and, indeed, our partners, the coalition forces, in Iraq. They made certain assumptions at that time which led to the strategy they outlined.

Among those assumptions was that we had reason to believe the Iraqi Government, freely elected, in place, was going to become a truly representative unity government of all factions. They committed a certain number of benchmarks, and it was thought at that time that those benchmarks could be met. That, I think is fair to say, was an assumption they had.

Our country, together with our coalition partners, had been in training with the Iraqi forces for some 2 years plus at that time, building up their own internal army, national guard, and police force. So the Iraq Study Group, in my judgment, took a snapshot of the situation in the fall of 2006, put it to paper, and it was in the President's framework of things that were considered when he derived his policy and enunciated it in January.

I, together with, I think, the colleagues on the Senate floor tonight, said to the President, after his announcement on January 10, that I was concerned that more of the Iraq Study Group concept was not infused into his new strategy. I remember specifically addressing the issue of the sectarian violence, now described by some as a civil war of some stage, and injecting the American GI, who really had no background in the complicated culture of the Muslim religion and the Muslim people, into that situation.

And I am not in any way denigrating that religion or that culture. Indeed, it is one of the oldest and, I think, most respected on Earth today. But, nevertheless, there are among the Muslim religion a few who really are dead set on changing the world--we know all about that--and now they are wreaking utter havoc, primarily in Iraq, and to an extent now in Afghanistan.

But that snapshot and those assumptions have not been borne out. We do not have any real evidence before us today, or real basis for much hope as to what this Iraqi Government might achieve in the foreseeable future. The President specifically said on January 10, the Armed Forces of Iraq will take the lead. We will be largely in a supporting role. We will embed forces, we will train, we will supply, but they are taking more of the lead. In fact, they have to a limited extent but not to the extent that I believe are the hopes and expectations that were raised in the President's January 10 framework of remarks. Certainly the Government has not performed as we had hoped and expected. The Armed Forces are making a contribution today but not to the degree that was anticipated in the fall of 2006.

I could go on and recite other concerns I have about this report, namely, can anyone point to where the Department of Defense sat down and studied the strategy in this report and has reached conclusions as to whether it would work better than the current strategy? Would it bring about a greater strength of government? Would it bring about a greater will, simple will among the Iraqi forces, to take on more and more responsibility?

I think, before we recommend to this body and, indeed, if it were to pass and become legislation, to the President, that he consider implementing a major portion, as this amendment describes, of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, someone better bring forth a careful military analysis of what might occur given the situation today--not the situation in the fall of 2006--of what would happen if we made a shift in strategy from the one now employed to this.

That is essential, if we are asking Senators to support that. Show us some analytical study of this strategy and how it would bring about greater results than the current strategy being employed.

There is great credibility attached to this report, primarily because of the extraordinary membership--their experience, their achievements in the private and public sector. Do we know for a fact that all members of that committee are endorsing the concept that now the Senate should lift their report as written and prepared some 8 months ago? Are there not some among that group who might question today whether the assumptions that they had that led to their report are still there to support now a shift of strategy? I don't know. I don't see that evidence. I

wish to see something from the members, each one, because I think it would be difficult if we shifted to this Iraq Study Group and one or more of the members of that group got up in the public and said: What we said then is simply not going to work today.

I think that is important because you are trading on the credibility of men and women of clear conscience, extraordinary backgrounds, who did, I think, a very fine job as best they could based on facts which have largely changed, or facts or assumptions that have not materialized.

We talk about a bipartisan resolution. I think the colleagues tonight joined me some weeks ago in putting together a consensus of a bipartisan nature, to go forward and to guide this Nation. It was, somewhat to my surprise, taken almost verbatim by the appropriators and included in the recent appropriations bill--I say recent, it was 6 or 8 weeks ago--and is now the law.

Part of that report that I wrote together with colleagues here said we ought to have an independent analysis of the Iraqi security forces as they exist today and what they might represent 2, 3, 4, 5 months into the future. I must say--I say it with a sense of humility--I persuaded a former commandant of the Marine Corps, Jim Jones, a man who has enormous credibility on both sides of the Congress, House and Senate, to head that group. I have met with him. He brought in distinguished retired military officers. Tonight, as we are here debating, they are in Iraq, preparing a report for this Congress and for the President as to their best judgment as to the military proficiency, the capability and will to fight of the Iraqi forces today and what is the likelihood that will improve in the months to come, because so much of all of our strategy, be it the surge strategy or any strategy, is dependent on that. As the President has said most eloquently: When they stand up, we will stand down.

I believed we needed an independent study, not to criticize the Department of Defense which for months has provided report after report of their analysis, but we ought to get a second opinion. That is now being prepared and will be brought forth, I think, in large part and made public prior to the President making his September 15 analysis.

That report we put together, which was adopted by the appropriators, the bill we had here, required the President to report to the Congress on or before July 15. I believed it was very important for colleagues to have a current analysis by the President, drawing upon the CENTCOM Commander, Admiral Fallon, drawing upon General Petraeus and other elements of the administration, to provide the Congress with a set of facts so, on the assumption we leave here early in August on a recess, we have a current analysis provided by the executive branch.

That report will be forthcoming. I think it is imminent. I happen to know the dates--I think we do--but I am not at liberty to divulge them tonight.

That report will also analyze the benchmarks, which benchmarks we recited in that bill which was voted on by this Chamber, or adopted by over 50 votes. We had to have a 60-vote margin. We couldn't make the 60 but we made it over 50. They will talk about each of the benchmarks and whether the Iraqi Government has made them and, if they have not, what the administration has done to try to encourage the Government to meet those benchmarks.

At this point in time there is a lot of conscientious work going on directed at the September timeframe when reports by General Jones and his group will come forth, the President will make another report, I am hopeful that the intelligence components of our Government will have an upgraded National Intelligence Estimate--so much is to be learned, when all this information is brought to the attention of the American public and to the Congress in the first weeks of September.

It is my urging that colleagues at this time in the debate on this bill, the annual authorization bill, try not to preempt and prejudge how this information will be formulated and given to the American public early in September.

I will close with a bit of a personal story. In 1951, 1952, I was privileged to serve in the United States Marine Corps. I was with a squadron of fighter bombers in old, cold Korea during that winter. I was a ground officer, a staff officer. I don't claim any fame whatsoever. I was doing my duty. But I watched those aviators as they would take off every day. I had occasion, because of my duties, to go up to visit the infantry and watch them.

At the same time, in the fall of 1951-1952, there was sort of a conference going on, largely in Panmunjon and elsewhere, to try to bring about peace and resolve that conflict. I remember these individuals who had to go out in harm's way each day, many of them, and said: I am wondering if I am going to be the last soldier, marine, or airman to take the last bullet because next time we may wake up and they have resolved this problem.

It dawned on them, but they went on and performed their duties. I say there is some parallel to this situation. Were the Senate to adopt this piece of work--about which I say to my colleagues, you have worked hard on, your hearts are in it--it would send a signal that what the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are doing today, carrying out the orders of the Commander in Chief, it would put in question that strategy. Their minds would go through that same thought: Well, if they are going to change it, why don't we change it right away? Because I don't want to be the last soldier to take the last bullet, if we are going to change this strategy and this strategy is not achieving the goals that were laid down.

It has the possibility of bringing about a great concern of those young people, so valiantly fighting and giving life and limb to carry out the orders of the President.

I think we have to pause, reflect on what we say and what we do as we are working on this bill. It seems to me the President is Commander in Chief and has made a decision. He is within, I think, 48 hours going to release this report and speak to the Nation. Practically speaking, this amendment I presume will not be brought up--I know as a fact--prior to his statement. But it seems to me we ought to listen carefully to what he has to say and his resolve as to what strategy we should be following in the ensuing days and weeks to come. I translate that into the minds of these young people fighting this fight and their families here at home, so worried, understandably, about the welfare of their loved ones.

I say to my colleagues, have you looked at the intelligence? I have taken it upon myself to go out to the various entities of the intelligence part of our community and specifically asked them about what they think the consequences would be if there were a change to this strategy. I am not at liberty to give their responses but I urge you to access on your own initiative that information and reflect upon it as you move forward and you endeavor to persuade other colleagues to join you in this endeavor.

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to come tonight to express my views to good friends, friends who worked with me and did work with me on that piece of legislation which eventually became a part of the appropriations bill and is now the law of the land. That is the legislation that requires the President in 48 hours to make a report to the Nation and to the Congress and to lay down what his intentions are for the weeks to come, until he gives his next report on September 15.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving in this body for 29 years. I have never met a finer gentleman than my colleague from Tennessee. I thank you for your gracious reference to this humble Senator.

I simply say that this has been a constructive debate. We have an honest difference of opinion. But I would urge that perhaps you check into some of the analysis that has been performed in certain segments of the Government about the current operations and how the benchmarks, so to speak--or maybe I withdraw those words--the points of strategy that are in the Iraq Study Group will or will not adopt.

I would simply say the obvious to my colleagues, that that report of the Iraq Study Group is still on the President's desk. I do not think he requires the need of the Senate to tell him what is in it. He knows. He looked at it, I have been given that assurance, very carefully before he devised his January 10 strategy.

The concern, the greatest concern I have is sort of sending out a signal we have throughout, that this strategy would be working better than this current strategy. I frankly felt that and expressed that on January 10. But I have to accept the fact that he is the Commander in Chief. He made the decision. He decided not, at this time, to implement the framework of the Baker-Hamilton report but to go ahead with the surge.

I am hesitant to criticize him now. I criticized pretty heavily, if you look at the Congressional Record, in January. I urged in several speeches that more of this Iraq Study Group concept be incorporated in the surge strategy. But having done that, I feel obligated now to support the President because he is committed to follow the law of the land as originated in this Chamber in a bill which I sponsored, and I believe my distinguished colleague from Tennessee did vote for. That bill, almost in its entirety, was incorporated into the appropriations bill by the conference of the House and the Senate, and it is the law of the land.

I hope the report that will be forthcoming in 48 hours reflects the seriousness of how the President approached the mandates of the Congress: Report to us on July 15. I have every reason he will do a report no later than September 15. At that time, he will have the benefit of a surge which is now, as envisioned, fully staffed and implemented by our complement of soldiers, together with such other Iraqi complements and perhaps some coalition forces, and we will then have been shown, did the surge work.

I, frankly, think the surge, if allowed to continue in the September timeframe, will have achieved a measure of what they set out to do. But the corollary obligation of the Iraqi Government to accept an improved security situation in Baghdad, created by the sacrifice of soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and marines in the surge, and the Iraqi fighters with them, they will not have taken advantage of what was achieved by that enormous sacrifice. That is my great concern. I hope I am wrong.

But in the time that remains, I am doubtful the concept that greater security in the Baghdad region will translate into greater activity and accomplishments by the Iraqi Government.

While there may be some military success, I don't see the signs now of the success that was anticipated by the Iraqi Government.

I close by saying I thank you for the opportunity. I commend you for your hard work and what you believe in. That is important in this institution, your own personal involvement and will to fight for what you believe. But I do urge you to take a look at what the intelligence community is looking at, determine the current military analysis. I say to my colleague from Colorado, indeed, there were a number of witnesses, professional retired witnesses with military experience that contributed to this. But again, they were looking at a situation and a factual basis that has substantially changed. I say to my colleagues, look at the intelligence, get some military analysis, and then think through carefully if the President has this on his desk still, it is there, do we need to pass a bill in the Senate and send a signal that would begin to engender some doubt in what we are doing now as being the best course of action and the risks associated with the men and women trying to carry forward and respond to the orders of the Commander in Chief. That is my fervent plea to you.

I yield the floor.