Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the superb contribution of the thousands of men and women deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The following e-mail, forwarded to my office by family members of a naval officer serving in Iraq is indicative of the fighting spirit and considerable sacrifice that members of the armed services are making on a daily basis. We owe all of these men and women a tremendous debt of gratitude for their outstanding service. This officer's perspective is most deserving of being considered by the American public.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the e-mail to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit program (FEHBP) premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars.

Access to affordable health care is a critical issue for everyone. While Federal employees enjoy the ability to choose among a wide variety of health plans to best suit their needs, substantial increases in FEHBP premiums threaten to make health insurance coverage cost prohibitive for many Federal employees, their dependents, and Federal retirees.

In response to these cost increases, a Presidential directive issued in 2000 extended premium conversion to current Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Premium conversion allows individuals to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees and State and local government employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the cost by reducing an individual's Federal tax liability. Regrettably, our retired civil servants, who pay the same premiums as Federal employees, do not have this same opportunity.

Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code.

Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees to assist them with increasing health care costs.

A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and the Military Coalition, have come out strongly in support of this bill.

My support for this legislation spans four Congresses. In the 109th Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan support with 64 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation and to show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit program (FEHBP) premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars.

Access to affordable health care is a critical issue for everyone. While Federal employees enjoy the ability to choose among a wide variety of health plans to best suit their needs, substantial increases in FEHBP premiums threaten to make health insurance coverage cost prohibitive for many Federal employees, their dependents, and Federal retirees.

In response to these cost increases, a Presidential directive issued in 2000 extended premium conversion to current Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Premium conversion allows individuals to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees and State and local government employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the cost by reducing an individual's Federal tax liability. Regrettably, our retired civil servants, who pay the same premiums as Federal employees, do not have this same opportunity.

Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code.

Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees to assist them with increasing health care costs.

A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and the Military Coalition, have come out strongly in support of this bill.

My support for this legislation spans four Congresses. In the 109th Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan support with 64 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation and to show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Joe Lieberman, in introducing legislation to designate the historic route undertaken by General George Washington and General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau to trap the British army at Yorktown, VA, as a national historic trail.

This proposed national historic trail traces the 600-mile route that French troops under the command of General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau took from Newport, RI, to Yorktown, VA, during the Revolutionary War. American troops under the command of General George Washington joined the French force outside of New York City and, later that year, on October 17, the combined armies defeated British General Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown with the help of the French fleet commanded by Admiral Francois de Grasse.

This historic trail would celebrate the Franco-American alliance and the heroic effort undertaken by these two great nations to ensure American independence. Led by their courageous and brilliant leaders, Generals Washington and Rochambeau, these two armies changed the course of history with their victory over the British at Yorktown. This national historic trail would recognize this historic route and educate the public at large about the contributions of these men and their armies.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Joe Lieberman, in introducing legislation to designate the historic route undertaken by General George Washington and General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau to trap the British army at Yorktown, VA, as a national historic trail.

This proposed national historic trail traces the 600-mile route that French troops under the command of General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau took from Newport, RI, to Yorktown, VA, during the Revolutionary War. American troops under the command of General George Washington joined the French force outside of New York City and, later that year, on October 17, the combined armies defeated British General Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown with the help of the French fleet commanded by Admiral Francois de Grasse.

This historic trail would celebrate the Franco-American alliance and the heroic effort undertaken by these two great nations to ensure American independence. Led by their courageous and brilliant leaders, Generals Washington and Rochambeau, these two armies changed the course of history with their victory over the British at Yorktown. This national historic trail would recognize this historic route and educate the public at large about the contributions of these men and their armies.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act.

Madam President, I have been privileged to be a Member of the Senate now in my 29th year. Never have I stood in the Senate and in any way impugned the integrity of any Senator to speak as she or he believes from their own heart about what is right. I have never tried to challenge the patriotism of any Senator as they express their views.

I say to my colleagues, I entered this debate simply because I feel the Senate of the United States of America, an institute revered throughout the world, should have the right to go forward and debate this critical issue before America today, before the whole world.

Over a week ago, I voted against cloture to support the rights of all colleagues to be heard. That issue has been back and forth between our two leaders now for some weeks. We have come to the point in time when we must move forward. The only vehicle for those who wish to have this institution move forward and fulfill its goal is to move, today, to vote for cloture. I shall cast that vote, not with a heavy heart but with a heart that I think I am doing right for the integrity of this institution.

I have joined with my good friend Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Collins,

and the other cosponsors, Senator Hagel, Senator Snowe, Senator Coleman, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Smith, all of whom, once again, signed onto this amendment, referred to as the Warner-Nelson-Collins amendment.

We do so because we only wish to express a measure of disagreement on one basic point--an important one--with our President. The United States Congress is an independent branch of our Government. We are, as we often say, a coequal branch of our Government. We have the right to respectfully disagree. And we do so in our language. We support the President on the diplomatic aspects of his plan. We support the President on the economic aspects of his plan announced on the 10th of January.

We only disagree with one portion of it: Madam President, do you need 21,500 additional men and women of the Armed Forces in this conflict-- indeed, it is more than that, as was testified before the Armed Services Committee the other day--to go into the streets and the alleys of Baghdad and to face an enemy which is largely today fighting a sectarian war?

This country gave an enormous sacrifice of life and limb to give Iraq its sovereignty. It is the duty of the Iraqi Armed Forces to take on the sectarian fighting. The American GI does not know the language, does not know the historic background of over 1,400 years of dispute between the Sunni and Shia. And we have trained over 300,000 Iraqi forces. Why not give those forces the responsibility to take on this fight?

Our resolution in no way has anything to do with the cutoff of funds. Senators stand up and castigate our resolution and claim it will cutoff funding. It will not cutoff funding to our troops. It supports the President. It supports the present level of all the troops throughout Iraq. It simply says: Mr. President, are there not alternatives other than using the American GI to put down this sectarian violence?

Madam President, I do hope, as we pursue this, we respect one another and our rights in this institution because I feel ever so strongly that our resolution supports the President economically, supports the President diplomatically, states that the President is correct, and clearly states that we cannot let this battle be lost and let the Iraqi Government collapse. We do not wish to see the people of Iraq denied the sovereignty that our blood, sweat, and toil have given them. We stand by the President on that. We simply say: Mr. President, this particular battle in Baghdad is best fought by the Iraqis. I regret to say that a New York Times article--and I asked this in open testimony before the Armed Services Committee a day or so ago to the Chief of Staff of the Army and to the Commandant of the Marine Corps--the accuracy of this report, that in the most recent battle there were 2,500 Americans and 200 Iraqi security forces. That is contrary to what the President said. He said the Iraqis will take the point in this battle. The President also said the Iraqis will bear the burden in this battle, and we would be there in support. This is not support. We are fighting that battle.

Again, this morning, I watched a report, presented by a U.S. general from Iraq, who stated that progress is being made in the battle in Iraq. Time and time again--he referred to the American forces making progress. He referred only to the United States forces fighting that battle, with no reference to the Iraqi forces. That is my point. That is why I steadfastly take this floor and respectfully disagree with the President. I will vote for the Gregg amendment. As a matter of fact, the Gregg amendment is in the Warner amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: At the hour of 1:30, is there an order for another Senator to be recognized?

And who is that Senator?

Can my colleague finish up in 1 minute? I want to try to accommodate my colleague.

I was not here.

Well, I have to jump a plane, but how much time does my colleague wish?

If my colleague can make it 3 minutes, then I think my

colleague from Missouri is anxious to catch his plane also.

Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of the Iraq resolutions.

Tomorrow at 1:45, I will vote for cloture, and I do that for reasons that I will set forth. I, like many of us, have to leave early this afternoon. I have consolidated all my State obligations and speeches between now and late tonight so I may return for the vote.

I want to go back and retrace the history of this debate. When I returned from Iraq, with several other Senators, and Senator Levin with me, at that time I was chairman of the Armed Services Committee and he was ranking. I indicated to the Nation by way of a press conference that I felt the situation was going sideways; that our strategy was not working.

Initially, in the days following that, I was highly criticized for those remarks. Eventually, however, others began to recognize the situation as I had, and, indeed, the President, when he was asked publicly if he supported the observations that I had made, said yes. I commend the President for immediately swinging into full gear his whole administration to study intensively the matters with regard to the current strategy. It included work by the Baker-Hamilton group, which I think played a very constructive role.

In the resolution which I prepared, with the assistance of Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Collins, we make direct reference to that. I bring up that background because the President then, on January 10, announced his intention to go forward with a changed strategy. The President, in that speech, specifically said:

If Members have improvements that can be made--I repeat--if

Members have improvements that can be made, we will make

them. If circumstances change, we will adjust.

Now, that was an open invitation to Members of Congress and others to address this very important plan laid down by the President. Our group, my 2 colleagues who worked with me, Senator Levin joining us later, and a half dozen others, some 8 or 10, up almost to 12, joined in an honest forthright way in accepting the President's offer. That is how this started. In drawing up our resolution, we were careful to say, yes, we had different views, but we urged the President to consider all options--I repeat all options--other than the utilization of 21,500 individuals to go into that situation.

Specifically, our resolution charges the Iraqi military with taking the lead, with taking the brunt. I reiterate, the Iraqis should be taking the full measure of responsibility for this Baghdad campaign. Therein rests this Senator's primary concern with the President's plan. I say that because our American GIs have fought bravely, courageously, and we have had sacrifice and loss of life and limb, and in no way have they failed in the attempt to try to help the Iraqi people achieve their freedom, achieve their Government through elections, and to become a sovereign Nation. Now it should fall upon the over 300,000 Iraqi troops, police, and other security officials to bring about the cessation of this violence in Baghdad.

The Iraqis are far better qualified by virtue of their understanding of the language. They have a far better understanding of what is it that is bringing about this sectarian violence. These are the very people we liberated and gave them back their sovereign land and who are now fighting themselves, Sunni upon Shia, Shia upon Sunni, with wanton murder and criminal activity. Our forces do not understand the language. It is hard for those here in this Chamber to go back and look at the origins of the difference between the Sunni and Shia, which go back some 1,400 years. Our troops shouldn't be in there trying to decide do we shoot at a Sunni or do we shoot at a Shia. That should be the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. That is the principal reason I found differences with the President.

Our leaders, the Record will reflect, have tried to reconcile the differences between our two sides. The last time I didn't support cloture. I did that to support the institution of the Senate, because this Senate stands apart from the House, and stands apart from legislatures all over the world because of the right and the freedom to debate and for all to bring forth their ideas. We are behind that now. So far as I know, the leaders have done their best and we were not able to achieve agreement, and now, procedurally, we are faced with the situation of a House resolution, which will be voted on in an hour or more, and will then be considered by the Senate. For that purpose, I will vote cloture.

We supported the President in our resolution. As I read the House resolution, it does not reject the President's initiative to have a diplomatic component to his plan. The House resolution does not reject the economic aspect of what the President puts in his plan. So I say to my colleagues that what comes before us does not reject outright the President's program. It directs itself to that military operation, much as we did in S. Con. Res. 7, and says respectfully that we urge the President to consider all options, options that were set forth in testimony before the Armed Services Committee by General Abizaid, when he said we don't need any more troops; by General Casey, when he was up for confirmation and he said he thought we only needed two brigades, not five brigades.

So it is against that background that I think our group has come forth in response to the President's invitation and stated our case in a very respectful way. This matter we will address, the House resolution, I do not believe rejects the entire plan of the President. The components of diplomacy and the components of economics are there. It is only the question of how we employ our forces. I say the burden falls on the Iraqi security forces.

I will submit for the Record a New York Times story which appeared this week outlining an operation in which we had 2,500 Americans and less than 100 Iraqi forces turned up to participate. I asked about this yesterday when questioning the Chief of Staff of the United States Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as to what their idea of the plan had been, and it was represented to us that there were to be joint forces, a joint command.

Certainly this is an early report, and I cannot speak to the authenticity of the article, but I have invited the Department of Defense to comment on it. It indicates to me that the Americans are bearing the brunt, not the Iraqi forces.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is that the matter before the Senate at this time is the continuing resolution and that Senators may address aspects of that resolution at this point in time; is that correct?

Madam President, the Senate has before it the continuing resolution which is an absolutely essential piece of legislation to permit our Government to go forward. We are about to have a vote, I understand, at 4:45 in relation to that resolution. The resolution has been consistent with the rules and precedent of the Senate, put before the Senate in such a way as to make extremely restrictive the ability to amend that resolution.

Nevertheless, a group of Senators have felt ever so strongly about our initiative, which is contained in S. Con. Res. 7, a document that was filed at the desk in connection with the debate on Iraq. We feel very strongly that the program announced by the President on January 20 of this year contained therein aspects to which we could not give our full concurrence. There is a range of differences of opinion between our group, and when I say ``our group,'' they have identified themselves from time to time as being cosponsors and other Members of the Senate.

Speaking for myself, I felt the plan, as announced on January 20, did not speak to the clarity I thought necessary, to say this operation should be highly dependent on the Iraqi-trained military and other security forces.

Our Nation, together with coalition partners over the period of this long conflict--in the not-too-distant future months or so it will begin a fifth year--have invested heavily in dollars and sacrifice and otherwise to train the Iraqi forces to take on their own security obligations. The figure ``over 300,000'' has been frequently referred to in briefings and otherwise, that we have thus far, in one way or another, trained and equipped.

As a member of the Committee on Armed Services in the course of briefings and, indeed, in the Intelligence Committee, both of which I serve on, it has been represented through the years, most particularly the last 2 to 2\1/2\ years, there has been a steady improvement in the quality and the professionalism of these Iraqi forces.

Now, 2\1/2\ years is a long time to train a military person. In the United States, we have prided ourselves since the days of World War II in taking a 17- or 18-year-old individual and training that individual to be a fighting person in 6, 8, 9 months and then some training with a unit and therein to a combat situation. Throughout our history, they have discharged themselves with the highest degree of professionalism. Many of the forces we currently have in Iraq have followed that pattern of less than a year's training. How well we know the courage with which the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, with the strong support of their families, have fought, suffered severe wounds, and died to enable the Iraqi people to have their freedom, to have a nation which is regarded as a sovereign nation today, to have a government elected by themselves.

I find it highly perplexing that in that cadre of some 300,000, there are not those elements that could have been utilized to a far greater degree in this campaign.

We have heard reports--within the last 2 days I received confirmation--that those Iraqi contingents, those troop commitments to this surge plan which is now in operation still fall short of the level of numbers in the commitment to have them in place.

Nevertheless, given the magnitude of that force, in our resolution, we specifically say the President should charge--we use the word ``charge''--hold them accountable for taking the lead, for taking the point, for bearing the principal burden of this operation called ``surge'' in Iraq as enunciated by the President on January 20. Therein, rests this Senator's grave concern about the utilization of 21,500--and even a somewhat larger force than originally announced--in this operation.

We gathered together individuals of honest thinking, clear thinking-- not by political motivation--and have tried to continuously push our resolution before this Senate such that each and every Senator could express his or her agreement, concurrence, or disagreement. We have not yet succeeded, but we are going to continue to press on. There is some representation--I don't know whether it is final--that the Senate may see after we come back from this recess the measure that will be presumably passed by the House this week and presented in what I'm told could well be an identical form. We feel very strongly our resolution, S. Con. Res. 7, without any changes in it, should be brought up as a substitute amendment, but at the present time, given the few minutes remaining, I see my distinguished colleague who has joined me in this effort, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson. We have put forward this S. Con. Res. 7, which requires the funding for the Government.

At this time, I ask the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer amendment numbered 259 which is our S. Con. Res. 7, in identical form, which is pending at the desk.

Madam President, I receive that with a great deal of disappointment because I felt, in this critical period of time as this operation in Baghdad is getting underway, the constructive recommendations to the President, as embraced in our resolution, should be brought before this Senate for full discussion. I see my colleague.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield?

I would have it reflected in our colloquy that I did support that because it has always been my understanding, this being the greatest deliberative body in the world's organization, legislatures should have that as a fundamental precedent.

I supported the Senator, much to the risk--and I was defamed from coast to coast--but I stood by the Senator's right to have his amendment, along with mine, considered by this body.

Madam President, I----

I certainly recall, over a period of 29 years, the importance of the continuing resolution and the greater utilization, regrettably, of the necessity for leaders on both sides to resort to that. But I would have to say to my good friend, the imperative of the ability for our Government to function requires the flow of money. And unless this particular continuing resolution is acted upon by this body within the next few days, it will, indeed, impair the ability of our Government to function. So we have to take into consideration those things.

Madam President, might I ask my friend, our good friend from Nebraska was to have had 2 minutes to rejoin in my effort to get the amendment up. At some point, might he be recognized and----

Madam President, I thank my friend from Arizona for his usual good humor and courtesy.

Madam President, if I might be recognized to thank my colleague from Nebraska and then thank our colleague for his courtesy.

I thank my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007. This bill seeks to add six new wilderness areas, expand six existing wilderness areas, and create two new national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest. Today, Congressman Rick Boucher will join me by introducing companion legislation in the United States House of Representatives.

Throughout my nearly three decades in the United States Senate, I have strived to preserve Virginia's natural resources through the designation of wilderness areas and, today, I am proud to say that Virginia boasts just over 100,000 acres of designated wilderness lands. However, there is still much work to be done. If enacted, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 will substantially increase this figure by expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in the forest with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness and wilderness study lands and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic areas.

Virginia is blessed with great natural beauty and diversity. From the coves and inlets of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite peaks of the Shenandoah Mountains, residents and visitors alike can enjoy a bountiful array of natural treasures. As demand for development in Virginia continues to increase, it is imperative that Congress act expeditiously to protect these wild lands. Through wilderness and national scenic area designations, we can ensure that these areas retain their natural character and influences.

As an avid outdoorsman, I enjoy opportunities for recreation like most Americans. Therefore, I want to stress the many joyful outdoor activities that will be enhanced by the wilderness designation in these areas, including: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, and horseback riding, to name a few. By designating these lands as wilderness and scenic areas, we ensure that Virginians will be able to enjoy these activities in an unspoiled playground for generations to come.

I am pleased that my colleague from Virginia, Senator Jim Webb, has agreed to co-sponsor this important legislation, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007. This bill seeks to add six new wilderness areas, expand six existing wilderness areas, and create two new national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest. Today, Congressman Rick Boucher will join me by introducing companion legislation in the United States House of Representatives.

Throughout my nearly three decades in the United States Senate, I have strived to preserve Virginia's natural resources through the designation of wilderness areas and, today, I am proud to say that Virginia boasts just over 100,000 acres of designated wilderness lands. However, there is still much work to be done. If enacted, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 will substantially increase this figure by expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in the forest with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness and wilderness study lands and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic areas.

Virginia is blessed with great natural beauty and diversity. From the coves and inlets of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite peaks of the Shenandoah Mountains, residents and visitors alike can enjoy a bountiful array of natural treasures. As demand for development in Virginia continues to increase, it is imperative that Congress act expeditiously to protect these wild lands. Through wilderness and national scenic area designations, we can ensure that these areas retain their natural character and influences.

As an avid outdoorsman, I enjoy opportunities for recreation like most Americans. Therefore, I want to stress the many joyful outdoor activities that will be enhanced by the wilderness designation in these areas, including: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, and horseback riding, to name a few. By designating these lands as wilderness and scenic areas, we ensure that Virginians will be able to enjoy these activities in an unspoiled playground for generations to come.

I am pleased that my colleague from Virginia, Senator Jim Webb, has agreed to co-sponsor this important legislation, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007

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

Mr. President, I have been on the road and I telephoned in and asked the cloakroom to reserve the period of 3:45 to 4:30 for the Senator from Virginia and seven other Senators to speak briefly. I ask unanimous consent that my request be granted.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

No. Before the Senator begins to speak, I want to make this clear. I ask the Presiding Officer, am I not to be recognized for the time between 3:45 and 4:30?

Mr. President, I shall be joined by a number of colleagues and the purpose of our taking this time is as follows: We have decided to put in an amendment to H.J. Res. 20, amendment number 259 which will be printed in today's record. This amendment mirrors S. Con. Res. 7, a resolution prepared by myself and others sometime last week, which expresses certain concerns we have with regard to the President's plan as announced on January 10 of this year.

This amendment, to H.J. Res. 20 is cosponsored by Mr. Levin, Ms. Collins, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Biden, and as other Senators return to town, we may have further cosponsors.

We are concerned that the fighting rages on throughout Iraq, and particularly in Baghdad. It is very important that the Senate should, as the greatest deliberative body--certainly in matters of war and peace--in a prompt way address the issues regarding Iraq.

Our men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting bravely in that conflict, as they are in conflicts elsewhere worldwide. Our concerns are heartfelt, not driven by political motivation. As we gathered as a group in the past 2 weeks to work on this, we took note of the fact that the President, on January 10, in his message to the Nation explicitly said that others could come forward with their ideas. I will paraphrase it--the exact quote is in the amendment we are putting in today--that he would take into consideration the views of others. So in a very constructive and a respectful way, our group said we disagreed with the President and we gave a series of points urging him to consider those points as he begins to implement such plan as finally devised throughout Iraq but most specifically in Baghdad.

We are very respectful of the fact that the plan put in by the President was in three parts: a diplomatic part, an economic part, and a military part. We explicitly stated in the resolution our support for the diplomatic and economic parts, and we are hopeful it can be put together in a timely fashion. There is some concern as to whether the three main parts can progress together, unified, in this operation, given the short timetable to implement it. So two parts of the program we wholeheartedly support and so state in this amendment.

The concern is about the military section. We state the explicit nature of our concerns. Some Senators have suggested the resolution expresses matters which I can find no source whatsoever in the resolution for those complaints. Nevertheless, I will address in the course of this time each and every one of those concerns.

Indeed, on the weekend talk shows, one Senator said: My problem with the Warner proposal and others that criticize the surge is, what is your plan? All right. That is a legitimate question. I say that our amendment states a clear strategy. It says as follows:

The Senate believes the United States should continue

vigorous operations in Anbar Province specifically for the

purpose of combating an insurgency including elements

associated with the al-Qaida movement and denying terrorists

a safe haven.

Secondly, the primary objective of the overall strategy in Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political compromises that will foster reconciliation and strengthen the unity government, ultimately leading to improvements in the security situation.

Next, the military part of the strategy should focus on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, conducting counterterrorism operations, promoting regional stability, supporting the Iraqi efforts to bring

greater security to Baghdad, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security.

Likewise, another part of our amendment states:

The United States military operations should, as much as

possible, be confined to these goals and should charge the

Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating

sectarian violence.

The United States Government should engage selected nations

in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally

sponsored peace and reconciliation process. Overall,

military, diplomatic, and economic strategies should not be

regarded as an open-ended or unconditional commitment, but

rather, as a new strategy, hereafter should be conditioned

upon the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks that must be

delivered in writing and agreed to by the Prime Minister.

Then we spell out a series of benchmarks. Such benchmarks should include, but not be limited to, the deployment of that number of additional Iraqi security forces as specified in the plan in Baghdad, ensuring equitable distribution of resources of the Government of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the oil resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner, and the authority of the Iraqi commanders to make tactical and operational decisions without political intervention.

Further, some Senators have indicated, again incorrectly, that our resolution either fails to recognize, or disagrees with all aspects of the President's plan, namely the political and economic aspects, in addition to the military part of his plan.

In fact, our resolution acknowledges directly that the President's plan is multi-faceted. Our resolution states, whereas, on January 10, 2007, following consultations with the Iraqi Prime Minister, the President announced a new strategy, which consists of three basic elements: diplomatic, economic, and military.

As such, our resolution disagrees only with the military aspect of the President's plan, and actually supports the diplomatic and economic aspects of his plan.

Finally, some Senators have suggested that our resolution either fails to support the troops, or threatens a cut-off in funding. Actually, our resolution does neither. It states forcefully our support for the troops: whereas, over 137,000 American military personnel are currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest traditions of the United States Armed Forces, and are deserving of our support of all Americans, which they have strongly; whereas, many American service personnel have lost their lives, and many more have been wounded, in Iraq, and the American people will always honor their sacrifices and honor their families.

And our resolution, specifically protects funding for our troops in the field and states: the Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

In sum, our resolution aims not to contravene the Constitutional authorities as Commander-in-Chief, but, rather, to accept the offer to Congress made by the President on January 10, 2007 that, ``if members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust.''

It is clear that the United States' strategy and operations in Iraq can only be sustained and achieved with support from the American people and with a level of bipartisanship in Congress.

The purpose of this resolution is not to cut our forces or to set a timetable for withdrawal, but, rather, to express the genuine concerns of a number of Senators from both parties about the President's plan.

It is not meant to be confrontational, but instead to provide a sense of bipartisanship resolve on our new strategy in Iraq. It follows many of the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report by focusing on what is truly in our national interest in Iraq, and spells those goals out in detail.

I want to divide our time between colleagues. I will ask at this time that the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, be recognized and that, following his comments, I shall be recognized again to give the remainder of my remarks. I say on a personal note to the Senator how much I valued our conversation over the weekend, together with our distinguished colleague from Maine, after which we decided today to put the language of S. Con. Res. 7 in as an amendment to the pending matter before the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that very point?

We had in our discussions, and Senator Collins joined in this discussion--that we could not conceive--and that I, this Senator from Virginia, could ever participate in a cutoff-of-funding in regards to this situation in Iraq.

But back to historical precedents. I have this volume, the ``Encyclopedia of the United States Congress,'' compiled by 20 eminent historians in 1995. And on this subject that the Senator addressed, they said the following:

Another informal power of the Congress in the foreign

policy field is the passage of resolutions by the House or

the Senate, often called a sense-of-the-House or sense-of-

the-Senate resolution. Although not legally enforceable, such

resolutions are often taken seriously by the President and

his foreign policy advisers because they are useful

indicators of underlying public concern about important

foreign policy questions. Moreover, as a general rule, the

White House wants to maintain cooperative relations with the

Congress and to give legislators the impression that their

views have been heard and have been taken into account in

policy formulation.

Clear documentation of the Senator's points in this very erudite resource of the history of the Congress. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I have another point of history. I find this fascinating. I hope, hereafter, colleagues, pundits, and writers will at least recognize that, and I repeat it. Senate Historian documents confirm the Senate has been posing sense-of-the-Senate resolutions since 1789. Thus, our Framers of the Constitution and those who served in the early Congresses recognized the value of this type of resolution.

I yield the floor. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine, again, for her steadfast support and advice throughout this entire process today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if I could ask our colleague a question before she departs? She made reference to her trip and the discussions that she had with the senior commanders. I would like to bring to her attention testimony that came before our committee, of which the distinguished Senator from Maine is a member, at which time we heard from the Commander of the United States Central Command, General Abizaid.

In the course of his testimony to Congress on November 15, 2006-- right in the timeframe the Senator made her trip--I will quote him, General Abizaid. The general said:

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, Corps

Commander, and General Dempsey--we all talked together. And I

said, ``In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in

more American troops now, does it add considerably to our

ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' And they all said no.

And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's

easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I

believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future.

I say to my colleague, that quote captured my own visit, which was just barely a month before that, when I came back and I described in my public comments that the situation in Iraq was drifting sideways.

That was a very serious summary. But I said it because I felt obligated to our troops who were fighting bravely and courageously and with a level of professionalism that equals the finest hour in the 200- plus-year history of our military--and the support their families give them. I felt ever so strongly that we were obligated as a country to reexamine our strategy and I called for that reexamination of strategy and it has been done.

But I say to my colleague, General Abizaid's summary about the need for more forces, does that not summarize what you learned on your trip?

Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if at this point in the colloquy--and then I will yield the floor because I know other Senators are anxious to speak--but we, the United States, the military, and the taxpayers have trained and equipped over 300,000 Iraqi security forces composed of the professional Army, police, border security, and a group of others. The thrust of our resolution originally, and this one that is here, the amendment which is identical, was to give the Iraqis this opportunity, which the Prime Minister himself called for. He said: Give us the opportunity to show that we can do this operation.

That is the basis on which we drew up the resolution. And in our resolution we said two things: The responsibility for Iraq's internal security and halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces. Then, specifically we said in the conclusion: The United States military operations should, as much as possible, be confined to the goals that are enumerated in the previous paragraph and should charge--I repeat--charge the Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating sectarian violence, and that is in the Baghdad operation.

So I think those facts, our resolution, now referred to as an amendment, absolutely parallels what we learned firsthand on our trips into that region.

Mr. President, I see other Senators are waiting. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine.

I ask for 2 minutes.

I thank the Senator from Maine. The Senator mentioned the bipartisan spirit. I am very pleased to state that Senator Levin, whom I spoke with this afternoon, Senator Ben Nelson, who has been with us steadily on this, and Senator Biden allowed with very extensive enthusiasm to

have their names attached as cosponsors.

I thank my colleagues who have come over and participated in this debate and others who have listened. I thank the distinguished Senator, my good friend from Nebraska, for working so hard on this amendment. We will fight on.

We may be idealists, but we will fight on for what we believe in and the integrity of this institution because we firmly believe, to the extent we can, forging a bipartisan consensus is the extent to which we can hopefully regain the full confidence of the American people on what we are doing in Iraq.

I agree with the President, we should not let it slip into a chaotic situation, but we do have some different constructive thoughts as to our strategy ahead.

I yield the floor.